Title: State ex rel. Pruitt v. Cuyahoga Cty. 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. Pruitt v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-
1808.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2010-OHIO-1808 
THE STATE EX REL. PRUITT, APPELLANT, v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY COURT OF 
COMMON PLEAS ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Pruitt v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-1808.] 
Appeal from dismissal of a petition for a writ of mandamus — Act complained of 
already performed — Adequate remedy at law — Judgment affirmed. 
(No. 2010-0005 — Submitted April 20, 2010 — Decided April 28, 2010.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, 
No. 94155, 2009-Ohio-6657. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the 
complaint of appellant, Michael Jarmal Pruitt, for a writ of mandamus to compel 
appellees, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas and Judge Michael P. 
Donnelly, to issue a revised sentencing entry that is final and appealable, albeit 
for reasons different from those expressed by the appellate court. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} We agree with Pruitt that if a trial court has not issued a final, 
appealable order and refuses to issue a revised sentencing entry, the defendant can 
seek to compel the court to act by filing an action for a writ of mandamus or a 
writ of procedendo.  See McAllister v. Smith, 119 Ohio St.3d 163, 2008-Ohio-
3881, 892 N.E.2d 914, ¶ 8; State ex rel. Culgan v. Medina Cty. Court of Common 
Pleas, 119 Ohio St.3d 535, 2008-Ohio-4609, 895 N.E.2d 805. 
{¶ 3} Nevertheless, Pruitt’s November 19, 2004 sentencing entry 
constituted a final, appealable order.  That entry fully complied with Crim.R. 
32(C) and State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197, 2008-Ohio-3330, 893 N.E.2d 163, 
syllabus, by including his guilty plea, the sentence, the judge’s signature, and the 
entry upon the journal by the clerk of court. 
{¶ 4} Moreover, notwithstanding Pruitt’s assertions to the contrary, that 
sentencing entry sufficiently included language that postrelease control was part 
of his sentence so as to afford him sufficient notice to raise any claimed errors on 
appeal rather than by extraordinary writ.  See Watkins v. Collins, 111 Ohio St.3d 
425, 2006-Ohio-5082, 857 N.E.2d 78, ¶ 51-53 (although petitioners’ sentencing 
entries mistakenly included wording suggesting that postrelease control was 
discretionary rather than mandatory, they were sufficient to authorize the Adult 
Parole Authority to impose postrelease control, and petitioners had an adequate 
remedy at law by appeal to raise any sentencing error). 
{¶ 5} Finally, the trial court has already resentenced Pruitt on two 
separate occasions.  See State v. Pruitt, Cuyahoga App. No. 91205, 2009-Ohio-
859, ¶ 6-8.  “Mandamus will not compel the performance of an act that has 
already been performed.”  State ex rel. Dehler v. Kelly, 123 Ohio St.3d 297, 2009-
Ohio-5259, 915 N.E.2d 1223, ¶ 1. 
{¶ 6} Therefore, the sentencing court and judge did not err in denying 
Pruitt’s motion for a revised or corrected sentencing entry, and Pruitt is not 
entitled to a writ of mandamus to compel them to issue a new sentencing entry. 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
PFEIFER, 
ACTING 
C.J., 
and 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
 
LANZINGER, J., dissents. 
 
The late CHIEF JUSTICE THOMAS J. MOYER did not participate in the 
decision in this case. 
_____________________ 
 
Michael Jarmal Pruitt, pro se. 
 
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and James E. 
Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees. 
_____________________