State ex rel. Sowell v. Matia

2024 Ohio 1374

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: April 5, 2024
• Docket: 113781
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State ex rel. Sowell v. Matia, 2024-Ohio-1374.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO, EX REL., MARIOUS SOWELL, :

Relator, : No. 113781 v. :

JUDGE DAVID T. MATIA, :

Respondent. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED DATED: April 5, 2024

Writ of Mandamus Order No. 573397

Appearances:

Marious Sowell, pro se.

EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J.:

On March 29, 2024, the relator, Marious Sowell, commenced this

mandamus action against the respondent, Judge David Matia, to compel the judge

to issue a final, appealable order in the underlying case, State v. Sowell, Cuyahoga

C.P. No. CR-06-485862-A. In a November 8, 2007 journal entry, the jury found

Sowell guilty of aggravated robbery with a one- and three-year firearm specification and tampering with evidence. The judge found him guilty of a repeat violent offender

specification and notice of prior conviction, as well as two counts of having a weapon

while under disability. In the November 14, 2007 sentencing entry, the judge

reiterated the facts of the convictions and the firearm specifications, but did not

reiterate that he had found Sowell guilty of the repeat violent offender specification.

The judge imposed the following sentence: three years on the firearm specification

consecutive to ten years for aggravated robbery and five years consecutive for the

repeat violent offender specification; the sentences for the other charges were run

concurrent for an aggregate sentence of 18 years.1 Sowell now argues that the failure

to reiterate the fact of conviction for the repeat violent offender specification

rendered the sentencing entry not a final, appealable order and that mandamus

should now issue to compel the inclusion of the fact of conviction for that

specification in order to make a final, appealable order. For the following reason,

this court denies the application for a writ of mandamus.

Sowell did not comply with R.C. 2969.25(C), which requires that an

inmate file a certified statement from his prison cashier setting forth the balance in

his private account for each of the preceding six months. This is sufficient reason to

deny the mandamus, deny indigency status, and assess costs against the relator.

State ex rel. Pamer v. Collier, 108 Ohio St.3d 492, 2006-Ohio-1507, 844 N.E.2d

1 In his direct appeal, Sowell argued, inter alia, that the conviction for the repeat

violent offender specification was not supported by sufficient evidence. State v. Sowell, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga N0. 90732, 2008-Ohio-5875. 842; State ex rel. Townsend v. Gaul, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-1128; and Hazel

v. Knab, 130 Ohio St.3d 22, 2011-Ohio-4608, 955 N.E.2d 378 — the defect may not

be cured by subsequent filings.

Accordingly, this court denies the application for a writ of mandamus.

Relator to pay costs. This court directs the clerk of courts to serve all parties notice

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

Writ denied.

_________________________ EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, JUDGE

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, P.J., and MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., CONCUR