Case Title: State ex rel. Green v. Wetzel

Citation: 2019-Ohio-4228

Docket Number: 2019-0540

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2019-10-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. Green v. Wetzel, Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-4228.] 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 
advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested to 
promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 
South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 
formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 
the opinion is published. 
 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2019-OHIO-4228 
THE STATE EX REL. GREEN, APPELLANT, v. WETZEL, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Green v. Wetzel, Slip Opinion No.  
2019-Ohio-4228.] 
Mandamus—Appellant had adequate remedy at law by way of appeal—Court of 
appeals’ judgment dismissing petition affirmed. 
(No. 2019-0540—Submitted August 6, 2019—Decided October 17, 2019.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Knox County, No. 18CA15, 
2019-Ohio-826. 
________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, Shane L. Green, appeals the judgment of the Fifth District 
Court of Appeals dismissing his petition for a writ of mandamus to compel 
appellee, Knox County Court of Common Pleas Judge Richard Wetzel, to 
resentence him.  We affirm. 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
2
Background 
{¶ 2} In May 2008, a jury found Green guilty of rape of, and gross sexual 
imposition on, a child less than 13 years of age.  The trial court sentenced Green to 
“a definite term” of life imprisonment for the rape count and a consecutive prison 
term of five years for the gross-sexual-imposition count.  The trial court also 
imposed a five-year term of postrelease control.  The court of appeals affirmed.  
State v. Green, 5th Dist. Knox No. 08-CA-20, 2009-Ohio-2065. 
{¶ 3} In 2015, Green filed a petition for postconviction relief; the trial court 
denied it, and the court of appeals affirmed.  State v. Green, 5th Dist. Knox No. 15-
CA-13, 2015-Ohio-4441.  Green sought reconsideration, arguing that he was not 
properly notified of postrelease control and that the trial court erred by sentencing 
him to a definite term of life imprisonment.  State v. Green, 5th Dist. Knox No. 18-
CA-3, 2018-Ohio-1493, ¶ 5.  The court of appeals rejected both arguments, holding 
that the trial court’s postrelease-control notification was sufficient and that the 
doctrine of res judicata barred Green’s challenge to his life sentence because it 
could have been raised on direct appeal.  Id. at ¶ 10-11. 
{¶ 4} In September 2018, Green filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus 
in the Fifth District Court of Appeals, arguing that his sentence is void because the 
trial court failed to properly notify him of his postrelease control and improperly 
sentenced him to a definite term of life in prison.  In March 2019, the court of 
appeals granted Judge Wetzel’s motion to dismiss the complaint under Civ.R. 
12(B)(6), concluding that res judicata barred both arguments. 
{¶ 5} Green filed a timely notice of appeal. 
Law and Analysis 
{¶ 6} As an initial matter, the court of appeals erred when it dismissed 
Green’s mandamus complaint on res judicata grounds.  Res judicata is an 
affirmative defense, Civ.R. 8(C), that “may not be raised by motion to dismiss 
under Civ.R. 12(B).”  State ex rel. Freeman v. Morris, 62 Ohio St.3d 107, 109, 579 
January Term, 2019 
 
3
N.E.2d 702 (1991).  Nevertheless, we will not “ ‘reverse a correct judgment merely 
because erroneous reasons were assigned as the basis thereof.’ ”  Salloum v. 
Falkowski, 151 Ohio St.3d 531, 2017-Ohio-8722, 90 N.E.3d 918, ¶ 12, quoting 
Joyce v. Gen. Motors Corp., 49 Ohio St.3d 93, 96, 551 N.E.2d 172 (1990). 
{¶ 7} A court may dismiss a mandamus action under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for 
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted “if, after all factual 
allegations of the complaint are presumed true and all reasonable inferences are 
made in the relator’s favor, it appears beyond doubt that he can prove no set of facts 
entitling him to the requested writ of mandamus.”  State ex rel. Russell v. Thornton, 
111 Ohio St.3d 409, 2006-Ohio-5858, 856 N.E.2d 966, ¶ 9.  We apply a de novo 
review to a dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6).  State ex rel. McKinney v. Schmenk, 
152 Ohio St.3d 70, 2017-Ohio-9183, 92 N.E.3d 871, ¶ 8. 
{¶ 8} To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, Green must show (1) a clear 
legal right to the requested relief, (2) a clear legal duty on Judge Wetzel’s part to 
provide it, and (3) the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.  
State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55, 2012-Ohio-69, 960 N.E.2d 452, 
¶ 6. 
{¶ 9} Green makes two arguments in support of his claim that his sentence 
is void. 
{¶ 10} First, he argues that he is entitled to resentencing because a definite 
term of life in prison is not a valid sentence for rape of a child under age 13 with 
no associated specifications.  But that claim is not cognizable in mandamus, since 
“sentencing errors are generally not remediable by extraordinary writ, because the 
defendant usually has an adequate remedy at law available by way of direct 
appeal.”  State ex rel. Ridenour v. O’Connell, 147 Ohio St.3d 351, 2016-Ohio-7368, 
65 N.E.3d 742, ¶ 3.  Here, Green had an adequate remedy at law because he could 
have challenged the sentence on direct appeal, State ex rel. Hunter v. Binette, 154 
Ohio St.3d 508, 2018-Ohio-2681, 116 N.E.3d 121, ¶ 20, and he did present this 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
4
claim—albeit unsuccessfully—in a postconviction petition, see Jackson v. 
Johnson, 135 Ohio St.3d 364, 2013-Ohio-999, 986 N.E.2d 989, ¶ 5. 
{¶ 11} Second, Green contends that the trial court failed to impose 
postrelease control for both counts and that the sentencing entry therefore was not 
a final, appealable order.  However, a trial court’s failure to include mandatory 
postrelease control for both counts in a sentencing entry 
 
does not deprive the appellate court of jurisdiction to consider and 
correct the error.  In fact, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) expressly 
authorizes a reviewing court to modify or vacate any sentence that 
is “contrary to law.”  Clearly, no such authority could exist if an 
unlawful sentence rendered a judgment nonfinal and unappealable. 
 
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92, 2010-Ohio-6238, 942 N.E.2d 332, ¶ 39.  
Accordingly, Green could have raised on direct appeal the trial court’s alleged 
failure to notify him of postrelease control on one of his counts. 
{¶ 12} Because Green had an adequate remedy at law by way of appeal, we 
affirm the dismissal of his mandamus action. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, 
and STEWART, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Shane L. Green, pro se. 
Charles T. McConville, Knox County Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
_________________