State ex rel. Hopson v. Cuyahoga Cty. Common Pleas Court

2012 Ohio 5701

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: December 5, 2012
• Docket: 99053
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State ex rel. Hopson v. Cuyahoga Cty. Common Pleas Court, 2012-Ohio-5701.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 99053

STATE EX REL. JEFFERY HOPSON RELATOR

vs.

CUYAHOGA COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED Writ of Mandamus and/or Procedendo Motion No. 460082 Order No. 460477

RELEASE DATE: December 5, 2012 FOR RELATOR

Jeffery Hopson, pro se Inmate No. 341-371 Toledo Correctional Institution 2001 East Central Avenue Toledo, OH 43608

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT

Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: James E. Moss Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Justice Center - 9th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, OH 44113

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.:

{¶1} Jeffery Hopson has filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus and/or procedendo.

Hopson seeks an order from this court that requires the Cuyahoga County Court of Common

Pleas to issue a “sentencing opinion” as mandated by R.C. 2929.03(F). Specifically, Hopson argues that his conviction for aggravated murder and the imposition of life imprisonment

required that the panel of three judges that presided over his trial state in a separate opinion the

specific findings of which of the mitigating factors set forth in division (B) of R.C. 2929.04 it

found to exist, what aggravating circumstances Hopson was found guilty of committing, and

why the panel of three judges could not find that the aggravating circumstances were sufficient

to outweigh the mitigating factors. The Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas has filed

a motion for summary judgment, which we grant for the following reasons.

{¶2} Initially, we find that Hopson’s complaint for a writ of mandamus and/or

procedendo is procedurally defective. Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a) provides that a complaint for

an extraordinary writ must be supported by a sworn affidavit that specifies the details of

Hopson’s claim. A simple statement that verifies that Hopson has reviewed the complaint

and that the contents are true and accurate does not satisfy the mandatory requirement under

Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a). State ex rel. Jones v. McGinty, 8th Dist. No. 92602,

2009-Ohio-1258; State ex rel. Mayes v. Ambrose, 8th Dist. No. 91980, 2009-Ohio-25; James

v. Callahan, 8th Dist. No. 89654, 2007-Ohio-2237.

{¶3} Finally, attached to the motion for summary judgment is a copy of the sentencing

journal entry, as executed by the panel of three judges in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-344107,

which was journalized on June 20, 1997. The Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas fully complied with the requirements of R.C. 2929.03(F) because it issued a sentencing

opinion and a separate sentencing journal entry. Neither procedendo nor mandamus will

compel the performance of a duty that has already been performed. State ex rel. Fontanella

v. Kontos, 117 Ohio St.3d 514, 2008-Ohio-1431, 885 N.E.2d 220.

{¶4} Accordingly, we grant the motion for summary judgment. Hopson to pay costs.

The court directs the clerk of the court to serve all parties with notice of this judgment and its

date of entry upon the journal as required by Civ.R. 58(B).

{¶5} Writ denied.

________________________________ SEAN C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE

MELODY J. STEWART, P.J., and KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR