Opinion
2023-T-0038
07-24-2023
STATE OF OHIO ex rel. WILLIAM A. HARRIS, SR., Relator, v. TRUMBULL COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Respondent.
William A. Harris, Sr., pro se, PID# A774-368, Grafton Correctional Institution, (Relator). Dennis Watkins, Trumbull County Prosecutor, and Ryan J. Sanders, Assistant Prosecutor, Administration Building, (For Respondent).
Original Action for Writ of Mandamus
William A. Harris, Sr., pro se, PID# A774-368, Grafton Correctional Institution, (Relator).
Dennis Watkins, Trumbull County Prosecutor, and Ryan J. Sanders, Assistant Prosecutor, Administration Building, (For Respondent).
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
{¶1} Pending before this Court are: Relator, William A. Harris, Sr.'s, Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, filed on May 19, 2023; and Respondent, the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas', Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Writ of Mandamus, filed on May 24, 2023.
{¶2} On May 19, 2023, Harris filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus premised on the following claim: "Relator served * * * sixty (60) days in pretrial confinement solely on the subject charges for which he has not been given credit as a result of the erroneous calculation by the trial court * * * and the refusal to correct upon proper request therefor." For relief, Harris "seeks the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus compelling the respondent trial court to recalculate the number of days spent in pretrial confinement in lieu of bail or bond by Relator, to include all such days * * * and to order the ODRC to properly reduce his sentence appropriately."
{¶3} As grounds for dismissal, the Court of Common Pleas argues that "Relator's allegations in this matter are not cognizable within this instant Complaint for Writ of Mandamus" and, moreover, "Relator has an adequate remedy at law" by way of appeal. State ex rel. Rankin v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 98 Ohio St.3d 476, 2003-Ohio-2061, 786 N.E.2d 1286, ¶ 10 ("[a]lleged errors regarding jail-time credit are not cognizable in mandamus but may be raised by way of the defendant's direct appeal of his criminal case").
{¶4} Harris counters that Rankin "predates the Legislative revisions to Ohio Law that vest 'continuing jurisdiction' in the trial court to correct errors in jail-time credit calculation, under O.R.C. §2929.19(B)(1)(g)(iii), which result in a final, appealable order." Harris acknowledges having filed in the trial court a motion to correct the alleged erroneous calculation of jail-time credit. The trial court denied the motion on November 4, 2022, "but he was never served with a copy of the decision, thus precluding the ability to appeal."
{¶5} Contrary to Harris' position, even after 2012 when trial courts were given continuing jurisdiction to correct errors in the calculation of jail-time credit, such claims are still not cognizable in mandamus. "Alleged errors regarding an award of jail-time credit are not cognizable in mandamus, because the inmate may raise that issue in his direct appeal of his criminal conviction * * *, or in a postsentence motion to correct jailtime credit pursuant to R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(iii)." State ex rel. Sands v. Culotta, 165 Ohio St.3d 172, 2021-Ohio-1137, 176 N.E.3d 735, ¶ 12. Nor does the claim that he was never served with a copy of the decision denying his motion to correct render Sands inapplicable. "And even if [the relator] is correct that the clerk did not properly serve notice of the judgment on him, he is not entitled to the requested extraordinary relief in mandamus, because he had adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law by delayed appeal and a motion for relief from judgment to raise this claim." State ex rel. McKinney v. Defiance Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 123 Ohio St.3d 153, 2009-Ohio-4693, 914 N.E.2d 1044, ¶ 1.
{¶6} For the foregoing reasons, the Court of Common Pleas' Motion to Dismiss is granted and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is dismissed. Harris' Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is overruled as moot.
JOHN J. EKLUND, P.J., MATT LYNCH, J., ROBERT J. PATTON, J., concur.