State ex rel. Mack v. Collier

2011 Ohio 4188, 129 Ohio St. 3d 497
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedAugust 30, 2011
Docket2011-0719
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 2011 Ohio 4188 (State ex rel. Mack v. Collier) 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. Mack v. Collier, 2011 Ohio 4188, 129 Ohio St. 3d 497 (Ohio 2011).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the complaint of appellant, Jeffery Mack, for a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, Medina County Court of Common Pleas Judge Christopher J. Collier, to hold a de novo resentencing hearing to correct an error in a sentencing entry that allegedly violated Crim.R. 32(C). “ ‘[T]he remedy for a failure to comply with Crim.R. 32(C) is a revised sentencing entry rather than a new hearing.’ ” State ex rel. Scheck v. Collier, 128 Ohio St.3d 316, 2011-Ohio-233, 943 N.E.2d 1022, ¶ 1, quoting State ex rel. Alicea v. Krichbaum, 126 Ohio St.3d 194, 2010-Ohio-3234, 931 N.E.2d 1079, ¶ 2. In addition, any error regarding the failure to hold a sentencing hearing before issuing a nunc pro tunc entry correcting the term of postrelease control could have been raised on appeal. Scheck at ¶ 1. Finally, although Mack claims on appeal that he is entitled to a revised sentencing entry setting forth the manner of his conviction, his prayer for relief in his complaint was limited to a resentencing hearing. Mack thus waived this claim. See State ex rel. Repository *498 v. Nova Behavioral Health, Inc., 112 Ohio St.3d 338, 2006-Ohio-6713, 859 N.E.2d 936, ¶ 41 (relator in mandamus case waived claim that it could have raised, but failed to raise, in its complaint or in an amended complaint).

Jeffery Mack, pro se. Dean Holman, Medina County Prosecuting Attorney, and Matthew Kern, 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

Related

State v. Mack
2016 Ohio 982 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2016)
State v. Shingleton
2013 Ohio 3943 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2011 Ohio 4188, 129 Ohio St. 3d 497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-mack-v-collier-ohio-2011.