State ex rel. Jones v. Ansted

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Jones v. Ansted

2012 Ohio 109, 131 Ohio St. 3d 125

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 19, 2012

Docket2011-1517

StatusPublished

Cited by23 cases

This text of 2012 Ohio 109 (State ex rel. Jones v. Ansted) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State ex rel. Jones v. Ansted, 2012 Ohio 109, 131 Ohio St. 3d 125 (Ohio 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of appellant, Marquise Jones, for writs of mandamus and procedendo to compel appellee, Sandusky County Court of Common Pleas Judge Barbara J. Ansted, to issue a new sentencing entry in Jones’s criminal case. Jones argues that the entry issued in his case is not a final, appealable order because it fails to dispose of every firearm specification of which he was found guilty. Thus, Jones contends, the entry does not comply with Crim.R. 32(C) and is not a final, appealable order.

{¶ 2} The October 29, 2008 sentencing entry constituted a final, appealable order because it set forth the fact of Jones’s convictions, the sentence, the judge’s *126 signature, and the time stamp indicating the entry upon the journal by the clerk. State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303, 2011-Ohio-5204, 958 N.E.2d 142, paragraph one of the syllabus; see also State ex rel. Lockhart v. Whitney, 130 Ohio St.3d 95, 2011-Ohio-4896, 955 N.E.2d 994, ¶ 2; State v. Ford, 128 Ohio St.3d 398, 2011-Ohio-765, 945 N.E.2d 498, ¶ 17 (“firearm specification is merely a sentence enhancement, not a separate criminal offense”). “[N]either mandamus nor procedendo will compel the performance of a duty that has already been performed.” State ex rel. Tenace v. Court of Claims of Ohio (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 319, 321, 762 N.E.2d 1009. And insofar as Jones contests the failure of the trial court to issue multiple sentences for his firearm-specification convictions, he has or had an adequate remedy by way of appeal to raise his claim of sentencing error. See, e.g., State ex rel. Cunningham v. Lindeman, 126 Ohio St.3d 481, 2010-Ohio-4388, 935 N.E.2d 393, ¶ 1.

Marquise Jones, pro se. Thomas L. Stierwalt, Sandusky County Prosecuting Attorney, and Norman P. Solze, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp, and McGee Brown, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of appellant, Marquise Jones, for writs of mandamus and procedendo to compel appellee, Sandusky County Court of Common Pleas Judge Barbara J. Ansted, to issue a new sentencing entry in Jones’s criminal case. Jones argues that the entry issued in his case is not a final, appealable order because it fails to dispose of every firearm specification of which he was found guilty. Thus, Jones contends, the entry does not comply with Crim.R. 32(C) and is not a final, appealable order.

{¶ 2} The October 29, 2008 sentencing entry constituted a final, appealable order because it set forth the fact of Jones’s convictions, the sentence, the judge’s *126 signature, and the time stamp indicating the entry upon the journal by the clerk. State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303, 2011-Ohio-5204, 958 N.E.2d 142, paragraph one of the syllabus; see also State ex rel. Lockhart v. Whitney, 130 Ohio St.3d 95, 2011-Ohio-4896, 955 N.E.2d 994, ¶ 2; State v. Ford, 128 Ohio St.3d 398, 2011-Ohio-765, 945 N.E.2d 498, ¶ 17 (“firearm specification is merely a sentence enhancement, not a separate criminal offense”). “[N]either mandamus nor procedendo will compel the performance of a duty that has already been performed.” State ex rel. Tenace v. Court of Claims of Ohio (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 319, 321, 762 N.E.2d 1009. And insofar as Jones contests the failure of the trial court to issue multiple sentences for his firearm-specification convictions, he has or had an adequate remedy by way of appeal to raise his claim of sentencing error. See, e.g., State ex rel. Cunningham v. Lindeman, 126 Ohio St.3d 481, 2010-Ohio-4388, 935 N.E.2d 393, ¶ 1.

Marquise Jones, pro se. Thomas L. Stierwalt, Sandusky County Prosecuting Attorney, and Norman P. Solze, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp, and McGee Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2012 Ohio 109, 131 Ohio St. 3d 125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-jones-v-ansted-ohio-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack