Title: State ex rel. Plant v. Cosgrove

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Plant v. Cosgrove, 119 Ohio St.3d 264, 2008-Ohio-3838.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. PLANT, APPELLANT, v. COSGROVE, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Plant v. Cosgrove, 119 Ohio St.3d 264, 2008-Ohio-3838.] 
Mandamus and prohibition – Petition to compel trial court to vacate amended 
sentence entry – Trial court did not patently and unambiguously lack 
jurisdiction to amend entry – Adequate remedy exists by way of appeal – 
Writs denied. 
(No. 2008-0482 ─ Submitted July 22, 2008 — Decided August 6, 2008.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Summit County, No. 24082. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing a petition for writs of 
prohibition and mandamus to compel the trial court judge to vacate an amended 
sentencing entry.  Because the sentencing judge did not patently and 
unambiguously lack jurisdiction to amend the sentencing entry, we affirm. 
{¶ 2} In November 2006, appellee, Summit County Court of Common 
Pleas Judge Patricia A. Cosgrove, sentenced appellant, Phillip R. Plant, to two 
years in prison and five years of postrelease control upon his guilty plea to a 
charge of aggravated trafficking in drugs.  In March 2007, Judge Cosgrove 
amended the sentencing entry to include the following language:  “By law, this 
sentence must be served consecutively to any other sentence the Defendant is 
serving.”  The court of appeals dismissed Plant’s appeal from the sentence based 
on that court’s view that the common pleas court’s 2006 entry was not final and 
appealable, as it did not set forth a finding of guilt.  Judge Cosgrove subsequently 
issued another entry in February 2008 that rectified the omission, making it a 
final, appealable order. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 3} Plant filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Summit County 
for writs of prohibition and mandamus to compel Judge Cosgrove to void the 
amended sentence.  The court of appeals dismissed Plant’s petition sua sponte. 
{¶ 4} In his appeal as of right, Plant asserts that the court of appeals 
erred in dismissing his petition.  “A court may dismiss a complaint sua sponte and 
without notice when the complaint is frivolous or the claimant obviously cannot 
prevail on the facts alleged in the complaint.”  State ex rel. Brooks v. O’Malley, 
117 Ohio St.3d 385, 2008-Ohio-1118, 884 N.E.2d 42, ¶ 5. 
{¶ 5} “Neither mandamus nor prohibition will issue if the party seeking 
extraordinary relief has an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.”  Dzina 
v. Celebrezze, 108 Ohio St.3d 385, 2006-Ohio-1195, 843 N.E.2d 1202, ¶ 12.  In 
the absence of a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction, a court having 
general subject-matter jurisdiction can determine its own jurisdiction, and a party 
contesting that jurisdiction has an adequate remedy by appeal.  State ex rel. 
Powell v. Markus, 115 Ohio St.3d 219, 2007-Ohio-4793, 874 N.E.2d 775, ¶ 8. 
{¶ 6} Judge Cosgrove did not patently and unambiguously lack 
jurisdiction to amend Plant’s sentence to correct it before his sentence expired.  A 
trial court retains continuing jurisdiction to correct a sentence that disregards 
statutory requirements or to correct clerical errors.  State ex rel. Cruzado v. 
Zaleski, 111 Ohio St.3d 353, 2006-Ohio-5795, 856 N.E.2d 263, ¶ 19-20.  Plant 
did not specifically contend in his petition that Judge Cosgrove’s amendment was 
not dictated by a statutory requirement ─ as the amended sentencing entry 
appeared to suggest. 
{¶ 7} Therefore, because Plant’s claims lacked merit, the court of 
appeals properly dismissed them.  Plant has an adequate remedy by appeal from 
Judge Cosgrove’s February 2008 sentencing entry.  We affirm the judgment of 
the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
January Term, 2008 
3 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
____________________ 
 
Phillip R. Plant, pro se. 
 
Sherri Bevan Walsh, Summit County Prosecuting Attorney, and Richard 
S. Kasay, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
____________________