Title: McAllister v. Smith

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as McAllister v. Smith, 119 Ohio St.3d 163, 2008-Ohio-3881.] 
 
 
MCALLISTER, APPELLANT, v. SMITH, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as McAllister v. Smith, 119 Ohio St.3d 163, 2008-Ohio-3881.] 
Habeas corpus – Failure of sentencing court to make finding of guilt in  violation 
of Crim.R. 32(C) – Petitioner has adequate remedy at law by way of 
motion to revise sentencing entry – Writ denied. 
(No. 2008-0160─Submitted June 3, 2008─Decided August 7, 2008.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Marion County, No. 9-07-45. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing a petition for a writ 
of habeas corpus.  Because habeas corpus is not a proper action to raise a claimed 
violation of Crim.R. 32(C), we affirm. 
{¶ 2} Appellant, John McAllister, entered a plea of guilty to felony 
charges of theft of a motor vehicle and escape, and the Harrison County Court of 
Common Pleas accepted his plea.  By judgment entry journalized in June 2007, 
the common pleas court sentenced McAllister to an aggregate prison sentence of 
18 months.  McAllister appealed the court’s sentence but subsequently withdrew 
his appeal. 
{¶ 3} In October 2007, McAllister filed a petition in the Court of 
Appeals for Marion County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel appellee, North 
Central Correctional Institution Warden Clifford Smith, to release him from 
prison.  McAllister claimed that he had never been adjudicated guilty of the 
charged crimes in accordance with Crim.R. 32(C).  The court of appeals 
dismissed the petition. 
{¶ 4} This cause is now before the court upon McAllister’s appeal as of 
right. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 5} McAllister claims that he is entitled to the writ because his 
sentencing entry violated Crim.R. 32(C), which rendered his sentencing entry a 
nonappealable order. 
{¶ 6} For the following reasons, McAllister’s claim lacks merit. 
{¶ 7} “Like other extraordinary-writ actions, habeas corpus is not 
available when there is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.”  In re 
Complaint for Writ of Habeas Corpus for Goeller, 103 Ohio St.3d 427, 2004-
Ohio-5579, 816 N.E.2d 594, ¶ 6.  McAllister had an adequate remedy at law by 
way of a motion in the trial court requesting a revised sentencing entry.  See, e.g., 
Garrett v. Wilson, Richland App. No. 07-CA-60, 2007-Ohio-4853.  In Garrett, 
the petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that the trial court had 
failed to make a finding of guilt, thus violating Crim.R. 32(C).  However, the 
petitioner had already filed a motion requesting a revised sentencing entry, and 
the trial court had issued a nunc pro tunc sentencing entry containing a finding of 
guilt.  The court of appeals dismissed the petition for a writ of habeas corpus 
because the deficiency had been corrected, and petitioner’s remedy lay in an 
appeal from the revised entry. 
{¶ 8} If the trial court refuses upon request to issue a revised sentencing 
entry, McAllister can then seek to compel the court to act by filing an action for a 
writ of mandamus or a writ of procedendo.  State ex rel. Grove v. Nadel (1998), 
81 Ohio St.3d 325, 327, 691 N.E.2d 275; Kennedy v. Cleveland (1984), 16 Ohio 
App.3d 399, 401-402, 16 OBR 469, 476 N.E.2d 683; see also Cleveland v. 
Trzebuckowski (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 524, 527, 709 N.E.2d 1148. 
{¶ 9} Moreover, McAllister cites no case in which a court has held that 
the failure to comply with Crim.R. 32(C) entitles an inmate to immediate release 
from prison; instead, the appropriate remedy is resentencing instead of outright 
release.  Cf. Scanlon v. Brunsman, 112 Ohio St.3d 151, 2006-Ohio-6522, 858 
N.E.2d 411, ¶ 4 (“habeas corpus is proper in the criminal context only if the 
January Term, 2008 
3 
petitioner is entitled to immediate release from prison or some other physical 
confinement”). 
{¶ 10} Based on the foregoing, McAllister is not entitled to release from 
prison.  Therefore, the court of appeals properly dismissed the petition because his 
claim is not cognizable in habeas corpus.  Therefore, we affirm the judgment of 
the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
____________________ 
 
John L. McAllister, pro se. 
 
Nancy Hardin Rogers, Attorney General, and Jerri L. Fosnaught, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
____________________