Title: State ex rel. Hopson v. Court of Common Pleas

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. Hopson v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-
1911.] 
 
 
 
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-1911 
THE STATE EX REL. HOPSON, APPELLANT, v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY COURT OF 
COMMON PLEAS, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Hopson v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 
Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-1911.] 
Criminal procedure—R.C. 2929.03(F) sentencing opinion—Local rule requiring 
complaint to contain specific statements of fact and to be supported by an 
affidavit specifying the details of the claim to commence an original 
action—Mandamus and procedendo will not compel the performance of a 
duty that has already been performed—Appellate court’s denial of relief 
affirmed. 
(No. 2012-2161—Submitted May 8, 2013—Decided May 15, 2013.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County,  
No. 99053, 2012-Ohio-5701. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying relief to 
appellant, Jeffrey Hopson, on his complaint for a writ of mandamus and/or 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
procedendo.  Hopson seeks to compel appellee, Cuyahoga County Court of 
Common Pleas, to issue a sentencing opinion in his criminal case that complies 
with R.C. 2929.03(F).  That statute requires a court or a panel of three judges to 
state “in a separate opinion” certain findings when imposing a sentence of life 
imprisonment in a capital case.  The Eighth District, on motion for summary 
judgment by appellee, denied relief because Hopson’s complaint failed to comply 
with Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a) and because appellee has already issued the 
sentencing order. 
{¶ 2} We have held that the Eighth District’s reading of Loc.App.R. 
45(B)(1) is reasonable and that it may dismiss a writ case that fails to comply with 
the requirement of an affidavit “specifying the details of the claim.”  State ex rel. 
Leon v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 123 Ohio St.3d 124, 2009-Ohio-
4688, 914 N.E.2d 402, ¶ 1; see State ex rel. Boccuzzi v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of 
Commrs., 112 Ohio St.3d 438, 2007-Ohio-323, 860 N.E.2d 749, ¶ 19.  Here, 
Hopson’s complaint was not accompanied by an affidavit specifying the details of 
the claim. 
{¶ 3} Hopson claims that his complaint is in the form of an affidavit and 
that this should satisfy the rule.  However, the rule is specific that the complaint 
must contain the specific statements of fact and that it must be supported by an 
affidavit specifying the details of the claim.  Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a).  The Eighth 
District reasonably interprets its rule to require a complaint and a separate 
affidavit, and Hopson’s hybrid document does not satisfy the rule.  The court 
below was justified in denying relief on that ground alone.  See Leon at ¶ 1. 
{¶ 4} Moreover, the court below correctly reasoned that relief is 
unwarranted because mandamus and procedendo will not compel the performance 
of a duty that has already been performed.  State ex rel. Fontanella v. Kontos, 117 
Ohio St.3d 514, 2008-Ohio-1431, 885 N.E.2d 220, ¶ 6, citing State ex rel. 
Howard v. Doneghy, 102 Ohio St.3d 355, 2004-Ohio-3207, 810 N.E.2d 958, ¶ 6.  
January Term, 2013 
3 
 
A copy of the R.C. 2929.03(F) entry, issued on June 20, 1997, was attached to the 
appellee’s motion for summary judgment below, and now appears on the docket 
of Hopson’s criminal case. 
{¶ 5} Hopson argues in his reply brief that the entry had not been 
journalized, as required by law to be a final appealable order.  However, he 
appears to be confusing journalization—documented by the judge’s signature and 
the stamp of the clerk of court—with appearance on the docket.  The entry 
apparently did not appear on the electronic docket until recently, but that does not 
mean that it had not been journalized.  See State ex rel. White v. Junkin, 80 Ohio 
St.3d 335, 337, 686 N.E.2d 267 (1997) (“Dockets and journals are distinct records 
kept by clerks”).  See also id., citing R.C. 2303.12 (the clerk of the court of 
common pleas “shall keep at least four books”:  the appearance docket, trial 
docket, journal, and execution docket). 
{¶ 6} Relief in mandamus or procedendo is therefore inappropriate. 
{¶ 7} Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of 
appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, FRENCH, and 
O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
PFEIFER, J., concurs in judgment only. 
__________________ 
 
Jeffrey Hopson, pro se. 
 
Timothy J. McGinty, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and James 
E. Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
______________________