Case ID: ohio-st-3d_132/html/0525-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The State ex rel. Duncan, Appellant, v. DeWeese, Judge, Appellee.
    [Cite as State ex rel. Duncan v. DeWeese, 132 Ohio St.3d 525, 2012-Ohio-3835.]
    (No. 2012-0904
    Submitted August 22, 2012
    Decided August 30, 2012.)
   Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of appellant, Roy Duncan, for a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, Richland County Common Pleas Court Judge James DeWeese, to issue a new sentencing entry. Duncan asserts that his current sentencing entry is not a final, appealable order.

{¶ 2} Contrary to Duncan’s assertion, to be final and appealable, the sentencing entry did not need to contain a disposition concerning specifications that Duncan was charged with but was not convicted of. See State ex rel. Rose v. McGinty, 128 Ohio St.3d 371, 2011-Ohio-761, 944 N.E.2d 672, ¶ 3; State ex rel. Davis v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 127 Ohio St.3d 29, 2010-Ohio-4728, 936 N.E.2d 41, ¶ 2.

Roy Duncan, pro se.

James J. Mayer Jr., Richland County Prosecuting Attorney, and Jill M. Cochran, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent.

{¶ 3} The December 8, 2009 sentencing entry for Duncan fully complies with Crim.R. 32(C) and R.C. 2505.02 because it states that he was convicted by a jury of specified crimes, it sets forth the sentence, it is signed by the judge, and it was entered upon the journal by the clerk of court. Rose at ¶ 2.

{¶ 4} Therefore, Duncan is not entitled to the requested extraordinary relief in mandamus to compel Judge DeWeese to enter a new sentencing entry.

Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp, and McGee Brown, JJ., concur. 
      
      . The entry orders Duncan to “pay restitution for medical expenses to Kathy Ward, Richard Miller, or providers.” In a subsequent entry denying Duncan’s motion for resentencing, the court stated that Duncan owed no monetary restitution. The entries thus resolved any issue concerning restitution.