State ex rel. Shepherd v. Gall

2025 Ohio 5416

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: December 3, 2025
• Docket: 115826
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State ex rel. Shepherd v. Gall, 2025-Ohio-5416.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE EX REL., DAJOHN D. : SHEPHERD, : Relator, : v. No. 115826 : HON. STEVEN E. GALL, J., : Respondent.

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: WRIT DISMISSED DATE: December 3, 2025

Writ of Mandamus Order No. 589833

Appearances:

DaJohn D. Shepherd, pro se.

ANITA LASTER MAYS, J.:

On November 17, 2025, the relator, Dajohn D. Shepherd, commenced

this mandamus action against the respondent, Judge Steven E. Gall, to compel the

judge to correct the sentencing entry in the underlying case, State v. Shepherd,

Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-17-620740-A, by including notification of appellate rights pursuant to Crim.R. 32(B). For the following reasons, this court dismisses the

mandamus action, sua sponte.

In the underlying case in 2018, Shepherd pled guilty to one count of

attempted murder with a three-year firearm specification, one count of felonious

assault with a one-year firearm specification, and one count of improper discharge

of a firearm. The respondent judge sentenced him to an aggregate sentence of 12

years. The sentencing entry did not include notification of appeal rights. Shepherd

did not appeal. He now seeks a mandamus to compel inclusion of the notification

of appellate rights in the sentencing entry.

The requisites for mandamus are well established: (1) the relator

must have a clear legal right to the requested relief, (2) the respondent must have a

clear legal duty to perform the requested relief, and (3) there must be no adequate

remedy at law. State ex rel. Ney v. Niehaus, 33 Ohio St.3d 118 (1987).

In the present case, mandamus will not issue because there is no duty

to include the appellate notification in the sentencing entry and Shepherd has an

adequate remedy at law. Crim.R. 32(C) specifies what must be in the judgment of

conviction. It does not require the trial court to record in the sentencing entry

notification of appellate rights. Furthermore, this court has held that mandamus

does not lie to compel the trial court to include such notification in the sentencing

entry, because there is no duty. State ex rel. Locke v. Friedland, 2018-Ohio-180

(8th Dist.). Moreover, Shepherd has an adequate remedy at law by filing a motion

in the trial court to correct the sentencing entry and then taking an appeal, if

necessary. In Dunn v. Smith, 2008-Ohio-4565, ¶ 8, the Supreme Court of Ohio

ruled that an extraordinary writ would not lie to compel observance of Crim.R. 32,

because “Dunn has an adequate remedy at law by way of a motion in the trial court

requesting a revised sentencing entry.” Shepherd is actually pursuing that remedy.

On April 8, 2025, he moved the trial court to revise the sentencing entry to include

notification of appellate rights. When the respondent judge denied the motion as

moot, Shepherd appealed that decision to this court. State v. Shepherd, 8th Dist.

Cuyahoga No. 115376.

Accordingly, this court dismisses the application for writ of

mandamus, sua sponte. Relator to pay costs. This court directs the clerk of courts

to serve all parties notice of the judgment and its date of entry upon the journal as

required by Civ.R. 58(B).

Writ dismissed.

____________________________ ANITA LASTER MAYS, JUDGE

MARY J. BOYLE, P.J., and KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR