Title: State ex rel. Bradford v. Dinkelacker

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. Bradford v. Dinkelacker, Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-1342.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2017-OHIO-1342 
THE STATE EX REL. BRADFORD, APPELLANT, v. DINKELACKER, JUDGE, 
APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Bradford v. Dinkelacker, Slip Opinion No.  
2017-Ohio-1342.] 
Mandamus—Appellant had and has used adequate remedy in ordinary course of 
law—Court of appeals’ dismissal of petition affirmed. 
(No. 2016-0252—Submitted February 7, 2017—Decided April 13, 2017.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-150714. 
________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the First District Court of Appeals 
dismissing the petition of appellant, Pele K. Bradford, for a writ of mandamus. 
{¶ 2} Bradford seeks an order compelling appellee, Judge Patrick T. 
Dinkelacker of the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County, to vacate his 
sentence as void and to resentence him “according to the verdict returned by the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
jury.”  To obtain a writ of mandamus, Bradford must establish, by clear and 
convincing evidence, that he has a clear legal right to the requested relief, that Judge 
Dinkelacker has a clear legal duty to provide it, and that Bradford lacks an adequate 
remedy in the ordinary course of the law.  State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio 
St.3d 55, 2012-Ohio-69, 960 N.E.2d 452, ¶ 6, 13. 
{¶ 3} Bradford’s mandamus claim asserts an error in sentencing.  A 
sentencing error “does not patently and unambiguously divest the court or its judges 
of jurisdiction to enter judgment.”  State ex rel. Pruitt v. Donnelly, 129 Ohio St.3d 
498, 2011-Ohio-4203, 954 N.E.2d 117, ¶ 2.  “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. Plant v. Cosgrove, 119 Ohio St.3d 264, 
2008-Ohio-3838, 893 N.E.2d 485, ¶ 5. 
{¶ 4} In fact, in 2015, Bradford filed a “motion to correct the judgment entry 
pursuant to Criminal Rule 36,” arguing that the trial court had violated his 
constitutional right to a jury trial “when it effectively ‘amended’ the aggravated-
murder verdict form by entering judgment convicting him under division (A), rather 
than division (B)” of R.C. 2903.01.  State v. Bradford, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-
150207, 2 (May 18, 2016).  The trial court denied his motion.  On appeal, the First 
District affirmed and held that while the verdict form was subject to correction 
under Crim.R. 36, “the trial court, when it entered judgment convicting Bradford 
under division (A) of the aggravated-murder statute, effectively made that 
correction” and did not thereby abuse its discretion.  Id., citing State v. Davie, 80 
Ohio St.3d 311, 686 N.E.2d 245 (1997) (holding that the trial court did not abuse 
its discretion in changing the wording in a verdict form after the jury was 
discharged when the change was not demonstrably prejudicial).1 
                                                 
1 We also note that the applicable sentences for a conviction under R.C. 2903.01 are the same 
whether the conviction is under division (A) or (B).  R.C. 2903.01(F) and 2929.02(A). 
January Term, 2017 
 
3
{¶ 5} “An appeal is generally considered an adequate remedy in the 
ordinary course of law sufficient to preclude a writ.”  Shoop v. State, 144 Ohio St.3d 
374, 2015-Ohio-2068, 43 N.E.3d 432, ¶ 8, citing State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. 
Comm., 11 Ohio St.2d 141, 228 N.E.2d 631 (1967), paragraph three of the syllabus.  
Bradford had and has used an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law by 
way of his 2015 motion and his appeal of the denial of that motion.  Therefore, the 
court of appeals correctly dismissed his petition for a writ of mandamus. 
{¶ 6} Bradford has also filed a motion for reversal of judgment under 
S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.07(B).  Bradford contends that he is entitled to judgment in his 
favor because Judge Dinkelacker failed to file a brief in this appeal.  However, 
under S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.07(B), we “may accept the appellant’s statement of facts and 
issues as correct and reverse the judgment if the appellant’s brief reasonably 
appears to sustain reversal.”  (Emphasis added.)  Bradford’s brief does not 
reasonably appear to sustain reversal, and we therefore deny his motion for reversal 
of judgment. 
Judgment affirmed 
and motion denied. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., 
concur. 
FISCHER and DEWINE, JJ., not participating. 
_________________ 
Pele K. Bradford, pro se. 
_________________