Title: State ex rel. Arnold v. Reid

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

THE STATE EX REL. ARNOLD, APPELLANT, v. REID, JUDGE, ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Arnold v. Reid (1999), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Mandamus to compel common pleas court judge to journalize decisions relating 
to speedy trial claim made during relator’s criminal trial — Complaint 
dismissed, when. 
(No. 98-2468 — Submitted February 9, 1999 — Decided March 31, 1999.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Greene County, No. 98-CA-73. 
 
In 1991, appellant, Waymon Arnold, was convicted of rape in violation of 
R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b), an aggravated felony of the first degree, and sentenced to 
life imprisonment.  The court of appeals affirmed Arnold’s conviction on appeal, 
rejecting Arnold’s argument that the state failed to comply with the R.C. 2945.71 
speedy trial requirement.  State v. Arnold (Oct. 1, 1992), Greene App. No. 91-CA-
43, unreported, 1992 WL 245542, jurisdictional motion overruled in State v. 
Arnold (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 1410, 607 N.E.2d 10.  In May 1998, the court of 
appeals affirmed the common pleas court’s denial of Arnold’s petition for 
postconviction relief because Arnold did not file a timely petition.  State v. Arnold 
(May 1, 1998), Greene App. No. 97-CA-108, unreported, 1998 WL 211820, 
discretionary appeal not allowed in State v. Arnold (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 1428, 
699 N.E.2d 945. 
 
In July 1998, Arnold filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for Greene 
County for a writ of mandamus  to compel appellees, the common pleas court 
judge, clerk of courts, and county prosecutor, to journalize decisions made during 
his criminal trial so that Arnold could establish his speedy trial claim.  Appellees 
filed motions to dismiss.  The court of appeals granted the motions and dismissed 
Arnold’s complaint. 
 
This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. 
 
2
__________________ 
 
Waymon Arnold, pro se. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Arnold asserts in his sole proposition of law that the court of 
appeals erred by dismissing his mandamus action.  Arnold’s assertion is meritless. 
 
Arnold had an adequate legal remedy by appeal to raise his claim 
concerning the trial court’s alleged failure to journalize decisions relating to the 
speedy-trial provisions.  See State v. King (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 158, 162, 637 
N.E.2d 903, 906; State v. Mincy (1982), 2 Ohio St.3d 6, 2 OBR 282, 441 N.E.2d 
571, syllabus.  Unlike State ex rel. Grove v. Nadel (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 325, 691 
N.E.2d 275, appellees’ alleged failure to journalize these entries did not preclude 
an appeal raising this issue. 
 
In addition, appeal and postconviction relief are not rendered inadequate by 
the fact that Arnold can no longer raise this issue on appeal or claim ineffective 
assistance of counsel in a postconviction relief petition for failing to raise this 
issue in his direct appeal.  Cf. In re Estate of Davis (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 45, 46, 
671 N.E.2d 9, 10. 
 
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.