Title: State ex rel. Harris v. Hamilton County 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. Harris v. Hamilton Cty. Court of Common Pleas, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-
1612.] 
 
 
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. 2014-OHIO-1612 
THE STATE EX REL. HARRIS, APPELLANT, v. HAMILTON 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. Harris v. Hamilton Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 
Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-1612.] 
Mandamus—Prohibition—Signing of a judgment entry of conviction is a 
ministerial act when the assigned judge has imposed sentence and the 
entry correctly reflects the sentence and the assigned judge’s name—
Judgment dismissing petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition 
affirmed. 
(No. 2013-0992—Submitted October 8, 2013—Decided April 22, 2014.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-130260. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the First District Court of Appeals 
dismissing the petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition filed by appellant, 
Lionel Harris. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} Harris was charged with aggravated murder in Hamilton County in 
1991.  His case was assigned to the docket of Common Pleas Court Judge 
Thomas Nurre. 
{¶ 3} A visiting judge, Judge Donald Schott, was assigned to preside 
over the trial.  The jury found Harris guilty.  On January 29, 1992, Judge Schott 
read the jury’s verdict, then immediately excused the jury and, the defense having 
waived a presentence investigation, sentenced Harris to serve a term of 20 years 
to life. 
{¶ 4} By judgment entry also dated January 29, 1992, the trial court 
sentenced Harris to a term of life imprisonment, with the possibility of parole 
after 20 years.  However, the judgment entry was signed by Judge Nurre on behalf 
of Judge Schott. 
{¶ 5} On April 26, 2013, Harris filed an original action in the First 
District Court of Appeals requesting writs of mandamus and prohibition and 
seeking to declare the entry of conviction void.  Harris argued that the judgment 
entry was void because it was signed by a judge who did not preside over the trial.  
The court of appeals granted the state’s motion to dismiss on the grounds that the 
relief sought by Harris was not available through mandamus or prohibition. 
{¶ 6} If in fact the judgment entry failed to comply with Crim.R. 32(C), 
then mandamus or procedendo would be the proper remedy to compel the trial 
court to issue a new sentencing entry.  Dunn v. Smith, 119 Ohio St.3d 364, 2008-
Ohio-4565, 894 N.E.2d 312, ¶ 9.  However, we find that Harris’s sentencing entry 
does not violate Crim.R. 32(C), and we therefore affirm the lower court’s decision 
on that basis. 
{¶ 7} Crim.R. 25(B) provides that “[i]f for any reason the judge before 
whom the defendant has been tried is unable to perform the duties of the court 
after a verdict or finding of guilt, another judge designated by the administrative 
judge * * * may perform those duties.”  There is no evidence—and the state does 
January Term, 2014 
3 
 
not contend—that the administrative judge reassigned the case to Judge Nurre 
after Judge Schott presided over the trial. 
{¶ 8} However, this court has held that Crim.R. 25(B) does not preclude 
one judge from signing for another without a reassignment when the matter is 
purely ministerial.  State v. Robb, 88 Ohio St.3d 59, 87, 723 N.E.2d 1019 (2000) 
(signing a death warrant is a ministerial act that does not require the signature of a 
sentencing judge). 
{¶ 9} We agree with those courts of appeals that have held that signing a 
judgment entry of conviction is a ministerial act when the assigned judge has 
already imposed sentence and the entry correctly reflects that sentence and the 
assigned judge’s name.  See, e.g., State ex rel. Priest v. Dankof, 2d Dist. 
Montgomery No. 25978, 2014-Ohio-540, ¶ 6; State v. Rye, 9th Dist. Summit No. 
26576, 2013-Ohio-1774, ¶ 10. 
{¶ 10} In arguing that the sentencing entry is void, Harris relies upon 
State v. Torrestoro, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 97224, 2012-Ohio-601.  In 
Torrestoro, the appellate court reversed a decision because the sentencing entry 
was signed by a judge other than the assigned judge.  Torrestoro is 
distinguishable because there was no indication that the assigned judge reviewed 
and approved the findings of fact before they were adopted in the final judgment 
entry by a different judge.  By contrast, in those cases in which sentencing entries 
signed by a judge other than the assigned judge have been approved, the assigned 
judge verbally sentenced the defendant, so the journalization of that sentence by a 
different judge was a nondiscretionary, ministerial act.  See Rye at ¶ 10; State v. 
Banks, 9th Dist. Summit No. 25279, 2011-Ohio-1039, ¶ 52; State v. Tolbert, 9th 
Dist. Summit No. 24958, 2010-Ohio-2864, ¶ 47-48. The same is true here: 
according to Harris’s own allegations, Judge Schott orally pronounced a sentence 
of 20 years to life from the bench.  The subsequent judgment entry merely 
journalized that sentence without alteration. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
{¶ 11} Therefore, the judgment entry complies with the requirements of 
Crim.R. 25(B). 
{¶ 12} A final, appealable order in a criminal case under Crim.R. 32(C) 
must contain four elements: (1) the fact of the conviction, (2) the sentence, (3) the 
judge’s signature, and (4) a time stamp from the clerk of courts.  State v. Lester, 
130 Ohio St.3d 303, 2011-Ohio-5204, 958 N.E.2d 142, paragraph one of the 
syllabus.  All of these elements are present.  Because Judge Nurre’s signing the 
entry was proper, the entry satisfies the requirements of Crim.R. 32(C). 
{¶ 13} Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of 
appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, FRENCH, and 
O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
O’DONNELL, J., concurs in judgment only. 
____________________ 
Lionel Harris, pro se. 
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Scott M. 
Heenan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
_________________________