Title: State ex rel. Kirkpatrick v. Rice

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. Kirkpatrick v. Rice, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-3958.] 
 
 
 
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-3958 
THE STATE EX REL. KIRKPATRICK, APPELLANT, v. RICE, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as State ex rel. Kirkpatrick v. Rice,  
Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-3958.] 
Mandamus—Court of appeals’ judgment dismissing complaint affirmed. 
(No. 2013-1665—Submitted May 27, 2014—Decided September 17, 2014.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Trumbull County, 
No. 2013-T-0004, 2013-Ohio-3978. 
________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, Jason Kirkpatrick, appeals the decision of the Eleventh 
District Court of Appeals dismissing his petition for a writ of mandamus.  For the 
reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Background 
{¶ 2} In September 2008, Kirkpatrick was sentenced after pleading 
guilty to 16 counts of breaking and entering and one count of engaging in a 
pattern of corrupt activity.  Trumbull County Common Pleas Court Judge John 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Stuard sentenced Kirkpatrick to five years of community control, including the 
requirement that Kirkpatrick enter and successfully complete a program called 
“Teen Challenge” (sometimes also called “Life Challenge”).  Judge Stuard 
warned that any violation of community control could result in the imposition of a 
nine-year prison term. 
{¶ 3} On April 16, 2009, after Kirkpatrick admitted to violating the 
terms of his release, Judge Stuard sentenced him to a total prison term of nine 
years. 
{¶ 4} Kirkpatrick appealed.  The court of appeals held that Kirkpatrick’s 
sentence for engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity exceeded the permissible 
two-to-eight year range for a second-degree felony and remanded the case for 
resentencing.  11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2009-T-0007, 2009-Ohio-6519. 
{¶ 5} The trial court resentenced Kirkpatrick to a total prison term of 
nine years, with eight of the years attributed to the conviction for engaging in a 
pattern of corrupt activity.  The court of appeals affirmed.  11th Dist. Trumbull 
No. 2010-T-0025, 2010-Ohio-6578. 
The mandamus complaint 
{¶ 6} On January 10, 2013, Kirkpatrick filed an original action seeking a 
writ of mandamus compelling Judge Stuard to resentence him.  (Judge Stuard is 
no longer on the bench, and Judge Ronald J. Rice has been substituted as 
respondent.)  Kirkpatrick’s claims all arise out of alleged defects in the 2008 
sentencing order. 
{¶ 7} The court of appeals dismissed the petition on September 16, 2013, 
in large part because Kirkpatrick’s allegations, even if true, were “legally 
insufficient to demonstrate that he has a ‘right’ to another sentencing hearing.”  
11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2013-T-0004, 2013-Ohio-3978, ¶ 16. 
{¶ 8} Kirkpatrick timely appealed to this court, and the matter is now 
fully briefed. 
January Term, 2014 
 
3
Legal analysis 
{¶ 9} Kirkpatrick argues that his first sentencing order is void, based on 
five defects: 
{¶ 10} (1)  “Teen Challenge” is a 12-month program, but the maximum 
residential sanction under the Ohio Revised Code is six months. 
{¶ 11} (2)  The “Teen Challenge” residential sanction is void because the 
sentencing entry did not specify the length of the term. 
{¶ 12} (3)  The trial court did not advise him of several of the community-
control sanctions on the record during the first sentencing hearing. 
{¶ 13} (4)  The first sentencing order failed to separately state the basis of 
the nine-year “reserve” sentence to be imposed upon a violation of community-
control release. 
{¶ 14} (5)  Because the nine-year year “reserve” sentence exceeded the 
maximum sentence permissible for a second-degree felony, he did not receive 
valid notice of the reserve sentence. 
{¶ 15} Each of these contentions attacks the validity of the 2008 
sentencing order.  However, that order has been superseded by not one, but two 
subsequent orders.  Kirkpatrick’s contentions are therefore moot. 
{¶ 16} Kirkpatrick offers only one argument to explain why defects in the 
2008 entry should make the subsequent entries void as well.  According to 
Kirkpatrick, because “the one-year alternative residential sanction was and is void 
* * *, there was no valid sanction to violate, and the Trial Court had no power to 
impose the reserve prison term.” 
{¶ 17} To the contrary, even if the 2008 entry were defective, the court 
still had jurisdiction to resentence him, given that Kirkpatrick has never 
challenged the validity of his guilty plea. 
{¶ 18} Judge Stuard’s April 16, 2009 order makes clear that he sentenced 
Kirkpatrick to a term of nine years not as a punishment for violating community 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
control, but because he considered nine years to be the appropriate sentence.  And 
Judge Stuard later corrected the error in that order when he sentenced Kirkpatrick 
to the nine-year sentence he is now serving.  Kirkpatrick has not established any 
defect in his current sentence, and therefore he has shown no legal right to a new 
sentencing hearing. 
{¶ 19} A relator seeking a writ of mandamus must establish (1) a clear 
legal right to the requested relief, (2) a clear legal duty on the part of the 
respondent official or governmental unit to provide it, and (3) the lack of 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.  Kirkpatrick has not 
satisfied these requirements. 
{¶ 20} Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of 
appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Jason W. Kirkpatrick, pro se. 
Dennis Watkins, Trumbull County Prosecuting Attorney, and LuWayne 
Annos, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
_________________________