Title: State ex rel. Barr v. Sutula

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Barr v. Sutula, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-3213.] 
 
 
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. 2010-OHIO-3213 
THE STATE EX REL. BARR, APPELLANT, v. SUTULA, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Barr v. Sutula,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-3213.] 
Mandamus — Court of appeals correctly held that appellant is not entitled to a 
writ of mandamus to compel judge to resentence him. 
(No. 2010-0606 — Submitted July 6, 2010 — Decided July 13, 2010.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, 
No. 94530, 2010-Ohio-926. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the request 
of appellant, Harry Barr, for a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, Cuyahoga 
County Court of Common Pleas Judge John D. Sutula, to resentence him.  Barr’s 
2007 sentencing entry constituted a final, appealable order, which fully complied 
with Crim.R. 32(C) and State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197, 2008-Ohio-3330, 893 
N.E.2d 163, syllabus (“A judgment of conviction is a final appealable order under 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
R.C. 2505.02 when it sets forth (1) the guilty plea, the jury verdict, or the finding 
of the court upon which the conviction is based; (2) the sentence; (3) the signature 
of the judge; and (4) entry on the journal by the clerk of court” [emphasis added]). 
{¶ 2} By specifying in the sentencing entry that “the court found the 
defendant guilty of robbery 2911.02-F2 with notice prior conviction, repeat 
violent offender specification 2941.149 as charged in Count(s) 2 of the 
indictment,” Judge Sutula sufficiently set forth the findings upon which Barr’s 
bench conviction is based.  Crim.R. 32(C).  The judge was not required to add 
language that the court found the defendant guilty of the offenses after a bench 
trial; that additional language would have been superfluous. 
{¶ 3} Therefore, the court of appeals correctly held that Barr is not 
entitled to the requested extraordinary relief in mandamus.  See State ex rel. Pruitt 
v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 125 Ohio St.3d 402, 2010-Ohio-1808, 
928 N.E.2d 722. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
BROWN, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Harry Barr, pro se. 
 
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and James E. 
Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
______________________