Title: State ex rel. Compton 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. Compton v. Sutula, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-1653.] 
 
 
 
 
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-1653 
THE STATE EX REL. COMPTON, APPELLANT, v. SUTULA, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Compton v. Sutula,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-1653.] 
Mandamus—Complaint seeking order compelling trial judge to issue new, 
appealable sentencing entry that complies with Crim.R. 32(C)—Writ denied—
Requested order would not provide relief sought—Order to comply with 
Crim.R. 32(C) would not constitute final, appealable order from which new 
appeal may be taken. 
(No. 2011-2186—Submitted April 4, 2012—Decided April 17, 2012.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 97246. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, John Compton, filed a mandamus complaint in the court 
of appeals seeking to compel appellee, Judge John D. Sutula of the Cuyahoga 
County Court of Common Pleas, to rule on Compton’s motions for jail-time 
credit.  The writ was denied. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} By separate entry, the appellate court denied Compton’s motion to 
amend his complaint to add a claim seeking to compel appellee to issue a final, 
appealable order in Compton’s criminal case.  In so ruling, the court rejected 
Compton’s argument that the trial court’s nunc pro tunc sentencing entry was 
defective under Crim.R. 32(C) and therefore not final and appealable, leaving him 
without a remedy.  It is from this ruling that Compton appeals. 
{¶ 3} The court of appeals did not abuse its discretion in denying 
Compton’s motion because any order to comply with Crim.R. 32(C) to correct a 
clerical error in his original sentencing entry would not constitute a final, 
appealable order from which a new appeal may be taken.  State v. Lester, 130 
Ohio App.3d 303, 2011-Ohio-5204, 958 N.E.2d 142, paragraph two of the 
syllabus. 
{¶ 4} Moreover, Compton waived his claim that Judge Sutula could not 
rely on a nunc pro tunc order to rectify any error in his sentencing entry because 
he failed to raise the claim in the court of appeals.  See State ex rel. DeGroot v. 
Tilsley, 128 Ohio St.3d 311, 2011-Ohio-231, 943 N.E.2d 1018, ¶ 9. 
{¶ 5} Finally, Compton’s claims concerning jail-time credit were 
rendered moot when he was released from prison.  State ex rel. Gordon v. 
Murphy, 112 Ohio St.3d 329, 2006-Ohio-6572, 859 N.E.2d 928, ¶ 6. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
John Compton, pro se. 
 
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and James E. 
Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
______________________