Title: State ex rel. Duncan v. DeWeese

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. Duncan v. DeWeese, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-3835.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2012-OHIO-3835 
THE STATE EX REL. DUNCAN, APPELLANT, v. DEWEESE, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as State ex rel. Duncan v. DeWeese,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-3835.] 
Court of appeals’ judgment dismissing complaint for writ of mandamus 
affirmed—Sentencing entry did not need to contain a disposition 
concerning specifications that defendant was charged with but was not 
convicted of. 
(No. 2012-0904—Submitted August 22, 2012—Decided August 30, 2012.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Richland County, No. 2011 CA 102. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the 
petition of appellant, Roy Duncan, for a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, 
Richland County Common Pleas Court Judge James DeWeese, to issue a new 
sentencing entry.  Duncan asserts that his current sentencing entry is not a final, 
appealable order. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} Contrary to Duncan’s assertion, to be final and appealable, the 
sentencing entry did not need to contain a disposition concerning specifications 
that Duncan was charged with but was not convicted of.  See State ex rel. Rose v. 
McGinty, 128 Ohio St.3d 371, 2011-Ohio-761, 944 N.E.2d 672, ¶ 3; State ex rel. 
Davis v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 127 Ohio St.3d 29, 2010-Ohio-
4728, 936 N.E.2d 41, ¶ 2. 
{¶ 3} The December 8, 2009 sentencing entry for Duncan fully complies 
with Crim.R. 32(C) and R.C. 2505.02 because it states that he was convicted by a 
jury of specified crimes, it sets forth the sentence, it is signed by the judge, and it 
was entered upon the journal by the clerk of court.1  Rose at ¶ 2. 
{¶ 4} Therefore, Duncan is not entitled to the requested extraordinary 
relief in mandamus to compel Judge DeWeese to enter a new sentencing entry. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
_____________________ 
 
Roy Duncan, pro se. 
 
James J. Mayer Jr., Richland County Prosecuting Attorney, and Jill M. 
Cochran, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent. 
_____________________ 
                                          
 
1. The entry orders Duncan to “pay restitution for medical expenses to Kathy Ward, Richard 
Miller, or providers.”  In a subsequent entry denying Duncan’s motion for resentencing, the court 
stated that Duncan owed no monetary restitution.  The entries thus resolved any issue concerning 
restitution.