From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State ex Rel. Walker v. Donnelly

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County
Mar 4, 2011
2011 Ohio 1106 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011)

Opinion

No. 96307.

RELEASED: March 4, 2011.

Writ of Mandamus, Motion No. 442043, Order No. 442238.

Writ Denied.

Anthony Walker, Pro Se Inmate No. A 250-265 Grafton Correctional Institution, for Relator.

William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecutor, James E. Moss, Assistant County Prosecutor, Attorneys for Respondent.


JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION


{¶ 1} Anthony Walker has filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus. Walker seeks an order from this court that requires Judge Michael P. Donnelly to render a ruling with regard to a "motion for resentencing and the issuance of a revised judgment entry" in State v. Walker, Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-268354. Specifically, Walker argues that he possesses the right to a new sentencing hearing and a corrected sentencing journal entry, since the nunc pro tunc sentencing journal entry of May 26, 1998, failed to indicate the means of conviction as mandated by Crim. R. 32(C) and State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197, 2008-Ohio-3330, 893 N.E.2d 163.

{¶ 2} Judge Donnelly has filed a motion for summary judgment with attachments, which we grant for the following reasons.

{¶ 3} The two journal entries attached to Judge Donnelly's motion for summary judgment demonstrate that a ruling has been rendered with regard to Walker's motion for resentencing and that a resentencing has occurred. The resentencing journal fully complies with Crim. R. 32(C) and Baker, since it sets forth (1) the guilty plea, the jury verdict, or the finding of the court upon which the conviction is based; (2) the sentence; (3) the signature of the judge; and (4) entry on the journal by the clerk of the court. Walker's request for a writ of mandamus is thus moot. State ex rel. Jerninghan v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 74 Ohio St.3d 278, 1996-Ohio-117, 658 N.E.2d 723; State ex rel. Gantt v. Coleman (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 5, 450 N.E.2d 1163.

{¶ 4} It must also be noted Judge Donnelly possesses no legal duty to conduct a resentencing hearing, since a nunc pro tunc journal entry may be employed to correct a sentencing journal entry, that because of a simple oversight or omission, does not comply with Crim. R. 32(C) and Baker. State ex rel. DeWine v. Burge, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-235.

{¶ 5} Accordingly, we grant Judge Donnelly's motion for summary judgment. Costs to Walker. It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Eighth District Court of Appeals serve notice of this judgment upon all parties as required by Civ. R. 58(B).

Writ denied.

PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, J., AND COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J., CONCUR.


Summaries of

State ex Rel. Walker v. Donnelly

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County
Mar 4, 2011
2011 Ohio 1106 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011)
Case details for

State ex Rel. Walker v. Donnelly

Case Details

Full title:State of Ohio ex rel., Anthony Walker, Relator v. Michael P. Donnelly…

Court:Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County

Date published: Mar 4, 2011

Citations

2011 Ohio 1106 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011)