Case Title: State ex rel. Marshall v. Glavis

Citation: 2003-Ohio-857

Docket Number: 20021416

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2003-03-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Marshall v. Glavis, 98 Ohio St.3d 297, 2003-Ohio-857.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. MARSHALL, APPELLANT, v. GLAVAS, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Marshall v. Glavas, 98 Ohio St.3d 297, 2003-Ohio-857.] 
Mandamus sought to compel common pleas court judge to correct his entries in 
a criminal proceeding — Court of appeals’ dismissal of petition 
affirmed. 
(No. 2002-1416 — Submitted January 7, 2003 — Decided March 12, 2003.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lorain County, No. 02CA008023. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
In January 2001, the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas 
convicted appellant, Fredrick Marshall, of domestic violence, abduction, felonious 
assault, and firearm specifications, and sentenced him to prison.  On appeal, the 
court of appeals affirmed.  State v. Marshall (Dec. 26, 2001), Lorain App. No. 
01CA007773, 2001 WL 1647706. 
{¶2} 
In February 2002, Marshall moved to correct and amend certain 
journal entries issued by the common pleas court during his trial in November 
2000 so that they accurately reflect the proceedings.  Appellee, Judge Kosma J. 
Glavas, denied the motion. 
{¶3} 
In March 2002, Marshall filed a complaint in the court of appeals 
for a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Glavas to correct his November 2000 
entries.  Judge Glavas moved to dismiss the petition.  In July 2002, the court of 
appeals granted Judge Glavas’s motion and dismissed the petition. 
{¶4} 
In his appeal as of right, Marshall asserts that the court of appeals 
erred in dismissing his petition.  We find Marshall’s appeal to be meritless.  
Contrary to Marshall’s assertion, Judge Glavas never erroneously specified in his 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
November 14, 2000 journal entry that it was Marshall’s motion to quash a 
subpoena duces tecum that was being denied. 
{¶5} 
Marshall further asserts that a November 15, 2000 entry by the trial 
court erroneously fails to reflect certain rulings, made from the bench the previous 
day, that it would call the alleged victim as a witness of the court pursuant to 
Evid.R. 614(A).  But any oral pronouncements by Judge Glavas were subject to 
revision before journalization.  See In re Adoption of Gibson (1986), 23 Ohio 
St.3d 170, 173, 23 OBR 336, 492 N.E.2d 146, fn. 3, quoting Schenley v. Kauth 
(1953), 160 Ohio St. 109, 51 O.O. 30, 113 N.E.2d 625 (“ ‘A court of record 
speaks only through its journal and not by oral pronouncement or mere written 
minute or memorandum’ ”); see, also, Wilkin v. Wilkin (1996), 116 Ohio App.3d 
315, 318, 688 N.E.2d 27 (“court will not ordinarily review a courtroom discussion 
on a legal principle which was not carried over into the judgment entry”). 
{¶6} 
Finally, Marshall had adequate remedies to raise his claims by 
appeal and correction or modification of the trial court record pending appeal 
under App.R. 9(E).  State ex rel. Hester v. Crush (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 563, 564, 
664 N.E.2d 930; Gaskins v. Shiplevy (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 380, 383, 667 N.E.2d 
1194; but, cf., State ex rel. Worcester v. Donnellon (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 117, 
551 N.E.2d 183 (mandamus will issue to require a court to correct an incorrect 
journal entry), limited to its facts by State ex rel. Neff v. Corrigan (1996), 75 Ohio 
St.3d 12, 17, 661 N.E.2d 170.  In fact, Marshall previously raised some of these 
claims in his unsuccessful direct appeal from his criminal conviction and 
sentence.  Mandamus is not a substitute for an unsuccessful appeal.  State ex rel 
Dehler v. Sutula (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 33, 35, 656 N.E.2d 332. 
{¶7} 
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK, LUNDBERG 
STRATTON and O’CONNOR, JJ., concur. 
January Term, 2003 
3 
__________________ 
 
Fredrick Marshall, pro se. 
 
Gregory A. White, Lorain County Prosecuting Attorney, and M. Robert 
Flanagan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
__________________