Case Title: State ex rel. White v. Suster

Citation: 2002-Ohio-2482

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2002-06-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. White v. Suster, 95 Ohio St.3d 465, 2002-Ohio-2482.] 
 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. WHITE, APPELLANT, v. SUSTER, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. White v. Suster, 95 Ohio St.3d 465, 2002-Ohio-2482.] 
Mandamus sought to compel common pleas court judge to correct an entry of 
sentence in relator’s criminal case — Court of appeals’ denial of writ 
affirmed, when. 
(No. 2002-0045 — Submitted April 9, 2002 — Decided June 12, 2002.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 79986, 2001-Ohio-
4158. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
In 1996, appellant, Dewight White, was convicted of two counts of 
burglary, two counts of theft, and one count of theft of less than $5,000, and was 
sentenced to an aggregate prison term of three and one-half years to fifteen and 
one-half years.  In December 2000, appellee, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas 
Court Judge Ronald Suster, denied White’s motion to correct the entry of 
sentence. 
{¶2} 
In July 2001, White filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for 
Cuyahoga County for a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Suster to correct his 
journal entry “to reflect the fact that [his] sentencing was never scheduled for 
April 11, 1996, at 9:00 A.M. at Relator’s request, nor was Relator sentenced on 
March 28, 1996.”  White did not attach an affidavit required of inmates by R.C. 
2969.25(A) describing each civil action or appeal of a civil action filed by the 
inmate against governmental entities or employees in the previous five years in 
any state or federal court, an R.C. 2969.25(C) certified statement of his prison 
cashier, or an affidavit specifying the details of his claim, as required by 
Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a).  After Judge Suster filed an answer and a motion to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
2
dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, the court of appeals denied 
the writ.  The court of appeals denied the writ for three separate reasons:  (1) 
mandamus is not appropriate to compel a judge to enter a specific judgment, (2) 
White did not comply with Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a), and (3) White did not comply 
with the filing requirements of R.C. 2969.25. 
{¶3} 
In his appeal of right, White challenges only the first of the three 
reasons given by the court of appeals in denying the writ.  Therefore, even 
assuming that White’s contention on appeal is correct, he would still not be 
entitled to reversal of the judgment.  In other words, even if the court’s rationale 
on one of its grounds was incorrect, its judgment denying the writ based on the 
two grounds that White does not challenge on appeal was proper.  State ex rel. 
Tenace v. Court of Claims (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 319, 321, 762 N.E.2d 1009; see, 
also, State ex rel. Sherrills v. Franklin Cty. Clerk of Courts (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 
402, 750 N.E.2d 594, affirming dismissal of mandamus claim for failure to 
comply with R.C. 2969.25(A) and (C) filing requirements. 
{¶4} 
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of 
appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Dewight White, pro se. 
__________________