Case Title: State ex rel. Davis v. Saffold

Citation: 2015-Ohio-1517

Docket Number: 2014-0854

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2015-04-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Davis v. Saffold, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-1517.] 
 
 
 
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. 2015-OHIO-1517 
THE STATE EX REL. DAVIS, APPELLANT, v. SAFFOLD, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Davis v. Saffold,  
Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-1517.] 
Mandamus—Valid journal entry of sentencing—Res judicata—Crim.R. 32—Court 
of appeals’ dismissal of petition affirmed. 
(No. 2014-0854—Submitted January 13, 2015—Decided April 23, 2015.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, 
No. 100990, 2014-Ohio-1954. 
________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, Robert Davis, appeals the decision of the Eighth District 
Court of Appeals dismissing his petition for a writ of mandamus.  For the reasons 
set forth below, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
Background 
{¶ 2} On July 20, 2009, after Davis pleaded guilty to burglary, appellee, 
Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold, sentenced him to five years of community 
control and warned him that a violation of community control would result in an 
eight-year prison sentence.  State v. Davis, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-08-509762-A. 
{¶ 3} The next month, Judge Saffold found Davis in violation of the terms 
of his release and imposed the eight-year sentence.  The court of appeals reversed, 
holding that Davis was not afforded his due-process rights in the conduct of the 
hearing, and remanded the case for a new revocation hearing.  State v. Davis, 8th 
Dist. Cuyahoga No. 93959, 2010-Ohio-5126 (“Davis I”). 
{¶ 4} In July 2011, Judge Saffold again found Davis in violation of the 
terms of community control and ordered the sentence into execution.  She did not 
expressly state that the “sentence” referred to an eight-year prison term.  The next 
day, a nunc pro tunc entry was issued clarifying her intent to sentence Davis to 
prison for eight years. 
{¶ 5} Davis appealed again, arguing that his “original sentence” was five 
years of community control.  The court of appeals rejected this argument.  State v. 
Davis, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 97227, 2012-Ohio-2499, ¶ 11 (“Davis II”) 
(holding that “the record is clear that the trial court was imposing the same 
sanction it had previously imposed in August 2009—the suspended eight-year 
prison sentence”). 
{¶ 6} Davis also appealed from the nunc pro tunc entry.  He argued that 
the nunc pro tunc entry was improper because it did not correct a clerical error; 
rather, it changed his sentence from community-control sanctions to a prison 
term.  The court of appeals rejected his appeal based on res judicata and also on 
the merits.  State v. Davis, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99376, 2013-Ohio-4905 
(“Davis III”). 
January Term, 2015 
 
3
{¶ 7} Davis then filed an original action in the Eighth District Court of 
Appeals for a writ of procedendo against Judge Saffold, seeking to compel her to 
proceed to judgment upon the court of appeals’ remand for execution of sentence.  
The Eighth District Court of Appeals granted summary judgment in favor of 
Judge Saffold, stating that Davis’s appeal had not been remanded for any further 
proceedings or for the entry of any additional judgments.  State ex rel. Davis v. 
Saffold, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100742, 2014-Ohio-307, ¶ 3. 
{¶ 8} Two weeks later, on February 13, 2014, Davis commenced the 
present action for a writ of mandamus in the Eighth District.  The court of appeals 
dismissed the petition.  Davis timely appealed. 
Legal analysis 
{¶ 9} Davis claims that he is entitled to a writ of mandamus to compel 
Judge Saffold to place him on community control or resentence him because a 
valid journal entry of sentencing has never been entered in his case.  He attacks 
the validity of the nunc pro tunc sentencing order for three reasons. 
{¶ 10} First, he argues that after Judge Saffold found that he had violated 
community control, the sentence she imposed did not include a prison term.  He 
argues that a nunc pro tunc entry cannot be used to change his sentence to a stated 
prison term.  The Eighth District Court of Appeals has already rejected this 
argument in Davis’s appeal from the nunc pro tunc entry.  Davis III, 2013-Ohio-
4905, ¶ 11.  Thus, it is barred by res judicata. 
{¶ 11} Next, he argues that the nunc pro tunc entry is void because it was 
signed by the administrative judge, not by Judge Saffold.  This claim, too, is 
barred by res judicata, because Davis could have raised it in Davis III.  Moreover, 
the argument fails on its merits.  Signing a judgment entry of conviction is a 
ministerial act that does not require a formal reassignment of judges, when the 
assigned judge has already imposed sentence and the entry correctly reflects that 
sentence and the assigned judge’s name.  State ex rel. Harris v. Hamilton Cty. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
Court of Common Pleas, 139 Ohio St.3d 149, 2014-Ohio-1612, 9 N.E.3d 1057,  
¶ 9. 
{¶ 12} Finally, Davis argues that the nunc pro tunc entry violates the “one 
document” rule of Crim.R. 32(C) and State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197, 2008-
Ohio-3330, 893 N.E.2d 163.  However, even if the sentencing entry did violate 
Crim.R. 32(C), the remedy would be a revised sentencing entry, not a new 
sentencing hearing.  State ex rel. DeWine v. Burge, 128 Ohio St.3d 236, 2011-
Ohio-235, 943 N.E.2d 535, ¶ 18.  Davis is specifically seeking a new sentencing 
hearing, to which he is not entitled.  Moreover, issuing a new sentencing order 
would be a vain act, given that Davis was able to appeal his conviction (albeit 
unsuccessfully).  Thus, he has not demonstrated a legal right to a writ of 
mandamus. 
{¶ 13} Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of 
appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
_________________________ 
Robert Davis, pro se. 
Timothy J. McGinty, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and James 
E. Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
_________________________