Case Title: State ex rel. Samples v. Heath

Citation: 2013-Ohio-66

Docket Number: 2012-1306

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2013-01-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Samples v. Heath, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-66.] 
 
 
 
 
 
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. 2013-OHIO-66 
THE STATE EX REL. SAMPLES, APPELLANT, v. HEATH, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Samples v. Heath,  
Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-66.] 
Mandamus and procedendo—Adequate remedy at law available—Court of 
appeals’ judgment dismissing complaint affirmed. 
(No. 2012-1306—Submitted January 9, 2013—Decided January 16, 2013.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Stark County, 
No. 2012CA00035, 2012-Ohio-2880. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the 
complaint of appellant, Douglas Lee Samples, for writs of mandamus and 
procedendo.  Samples is not entitled to the requested extraordinary relief in 
mandamus for his claims of sentencing error, because he had an adequate remedy 
by way of appeal to raise his claims.  See R.C. 2731.05; State ex rel. Barr v. 
Sutula, 132 Ohio St.3d 297, 2012-Ohio-2790, 971 N.E.2d 928 (court affirmed 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2 
 
judgment dismissing mandamus claim because appellant “had an adequate 
remedy by way of appeal from his sentencing entry to raise his claim of 
sentencing error”).  Moreover, insofar as Samples sought writs of mandamus and 
procedendo to compel the issuance of a valid sentence and rulings on motions that 
were pending when he filed his complaint, the trial court has provided the 
requested relief.  See, e.g., State v. Samples, 5th Dist. No. 2010-CA-00122, 2011-
Ohio-179, affirming the trial court’s revised sentencing entry.  “Neither 
mandamus nor procedendo will lie to compel an act that has already been 
performed.”  State ex rel. Lester v. Pepple, 130 Ohio St.3d 353, 2011-Ohio-5756, 
958 N.E.2d 566, ¶ 1.1 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’Neill, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Douglas Lee Samples, pro se. 
 
John D. Ferrero, Stark County Prosecuting Attorney, and Ronald Mark 
Caldwell, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
_____________________ 
                                          
 
1.  We deny Samples’s motion to strike appellee’s brief.  Although appellee’s brief does not 
comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.03(B) because it does not include a table of contents and a table of 
authorities and we admonish appellee and her attorneys for such noncompliance, the brief need not 
be stricken, because Samples was able to timely respond to the brief and appellee’s brief provides 
the court with a statement of facts and the relevant legal arguments on the issues raised in this 
appeal.  See State ex rel. Physicians Commt. for Responsible Medicine v. Bd. of Trustees of Ohio 
State Univ., 108 Ohio St.3d 288, 2006-Ohio-903, 843 N.E.2d 174, ¶ 8-14.