Case Title: State ex rel. Hamilton v. Brunner

Citation: 2005-Ohio-1735

Docket Number: 20041908

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2005-04-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Hamilton v. Brunner, 105 Ohio St.3d 304, 2005-Ohio-1735.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. HAMILTON, APPELLANT, v. BRUNNER, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Hamilton v. Brunner,  
105 Ohio St.3d 304, 2005-Ohio-1735.] 
Mandamus to compel judge to rule on petition for postconviction relief and 
motions — Denied as moot after rulings made — Adequate remedy in 
ordinary course of law. 
(No. 2004-1908 — Submitted March 30, 2004 — Decided April 27, 2005.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 02AP-1332. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} On February 26, 1993, appellant, Sidney S. Hamilton, was indicted 
on several criminal charges.  In August 1993, Hamilton entered a guilty plea to 
attempted rape and gross sexual imposition and was sentenced to an aggregate 
prison term of six to 15 years.  Hamilton did not file a timely appeal of his 
conviction and sentence.  Hamilton filed various postjudgment motions as well as 
a petition for postconviction relief.  On October 29, 1997, Hamilton was 
adjudicated to be a sexual predator. 
{¶ 2} In November 2002, Hamilton filed a petition in the Court of 
Appeals for Franklin County for a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, Franklin 
County Common Pleas Court Judge Jennifer L. Brunner, to rule on his pending 
postconviction motions and to correct his judgment entry to reflect that the 
common pleas court never obtained jurisdiction over him.  On July 23, 2003, 
Judge Brunner denied Hamilton’s petition for postconviction relief and pending 
motions.  On July 25, 2003, Judge Brunner moved to dismiss Hamilton’s 
mandamus petition.  The court of appeals converted the dismissal motion to a 
motion for summary judgment. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 3} On September 30, 2004, the court of appeals denied the writ. 
{¶ 4} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
{¶ 5} Hamilton requested a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Brunner 
to rule on his postconviction petition and motions.  She did so on July 23, 2003.  “ 
‘Mandamus does not lie to compel an act that has already been performed.’ ”  
State ex rel. Natl. City Bank v. Maloney, 103 Ohio St.3d 93, 2004-Ohio-4437, 814 
N.E.2d 58, ¶ 10, quoting State ex rel. Jones v. O’Connor (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 
426, 704 N.E.2d 1223. 
{¶ 6} Moreover, Hamilton’s claim that his journal entry should be 
corrected to reflect the fact that the trial court never obtained proper jurisdiction 
over him because of an improper indictment and defective municipal court 
proceedings is meritless.  Mandamus will not issue if there is a plain and adequate 
remedy in the ordinary course of law.  State ex rel. Ullmann v. Hayes, 103 Ohio 
St.3d 405, 2004-Ohio-5469, 816 N.E.2d 245, ¶ 8.  Hamilton had an adequate 
remedy by appeal to raise his claim that his indictment was invalid so as to 
warrant correction of his sentencing entry.  See State ex rel. Hadlock v. Corrigan 
(1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 202, 580 N.E.2d 1089 (court affirmed dismissal of 
mandamus action to compel trial court to vacate sentencing entry because 
appellant had adequate legal remedies to claim that there was no valid charging 
instrument).  An indictment cannot be collaterally attacked following a judgment 
of conviction.  State ex rel. Wilcox v. Seidner (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 412, 415, 667 
N.E.2d 1220.  Nor are municipal court improprieties in a case in which the 
petitioner is subsequently convicted and sentenced upon an indictment cognizable 
in an extraordinary-writ action.  See, e.g., Williamson v. Williams, 103 Ohio St.3d 
25, 2004-Ohio-4111, 812 N.E.2d 1283, ¶ 2-3; Harris v. Bagley, 97 Ohio St.3d 98, 
2002-Ohio-5369, 776 N.E.2d 490, ¶ 3. 
{¶ 7} Further, Hamilton’s claim that he has been denied his right to a 
speedy trial is not cognizable in an extraordinary-writ proceeding; again, he had 
January Term, 2005 
3 
an adequate remedy at law by way of appeal to raise this claim.  See Jackson v. 
Wilson, 100 Ohio St.3d 315, 2003-Ohio-6112, 798 N.E.2d 1086, ¶ 5; State ex rel. 
Dix v. Angelotta (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 115, 18 OBR 146, 480 N.E.2d 407. 
{¶ 8} Finally, we find no merit in Hamilton’s assertion that alleged “bad 
faith” by the state and denial of his right to due process of law prevent the state 
from objecting to his appeal. 
{¶ 9} Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of 
appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Sidney S. Hamilton, pro se. 
 
Ron O’Brien, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Patrick J. 
Piccininni, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
______________________