Title: State ex rel. Agosto v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Agosto v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 119 Ohio St.3d 366, 
2008-Ohio-4607.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. AGOSTO, APPELLANT, v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY COURT OF 
COMMON PLEAS ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Agosto v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas,  
119 Ohio St.3d 366, 2008-Ohio-4607.] 
Final, appealable order — Crim.R. 32(C) — State v. Baker applied — Judgment 
affirmed. 
(No. 2008-0216 ─ Submitted June 3, 2008 ─ Decided September 18, 2008.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 90631. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing a petition for writs of 
mandamus and/or procedendo to compel a common pleas court and judge to enter 
a judgment in a criminal case.  Because the common pleas court and judge have 
already entered a judgment in the criminal case, we affirm. 
Sentencing Entry and Appeals 
{¶ 2} Appellee Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas journalized an 
entry sentencing appellant, Jose Agosto Jr., to an aggregate prison term of 15 
years to life.  The entry noted that a jury had returned verdicts of guilty against 
Agosto on one count of murder and one count of felonious assault, but did not 
specify his plea to the charges. 
{¶ 3} On appeal, the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County affirmed his 
convictions and sentence.  State v. Agosto, Cuyahoga App. No. 87283, 2006-
Ohio-5011.  We did not allow Agosto’s further appeal.  State v. Agosto, 114 Ohio 
St.3d 1414, 2007-Ohio-2632, 867 N.E.2d 846. 
Common Pleas Court Motion 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 4} Shortly after these unsuccessful appeals, Agosto filed a motion in 
the common pleas court to be resentenced so that the court could enter a judgment 
that complied with Crim.R. 32(C).  Appellee Judge Hollie L. Gallagher of the 
common pleas court denied the motion. 
Mandamus and Procedendo Case 
{¶ 5} A few months later, Agosto filed a complaint in the Court of 
Appeals for Cuyahoga County for writs of mandamus and/or procedendo to 
compel the common pleas court and Judge Gallagher to enter a judgment 
complying with Crim.R. 32(C).  Appellees filed a motion to dismiss.  The court of 
appeals granted appellees’ motion and dismissed the petition. 
{¶ 6} This cause is now before the court upon Agosto’s appeal. 
Mandamus and Procedendo 
to Compel Compliance with Crim.R. 32(C) 
{¶ 7} Agosto asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his 
complaint for writs of mandamus and/or procedendo.  Dismissal under Civ.R. 
12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is 
appropriate if, after all factual allegations are presumed true and all reasonable 
inferences are made in Agosto’s favor, it appears beyond doubt that he could 
prove no set of facts entitling him to the requested extraordinary relief in 
mandamus and procedendo.  State ex rel. Turner v. Houk, 112 Ohio St.3d 561, 
2007-Ohio-814, 862 N.E.2d 104, ¶ 5. 
{¶ 8} “[P]rocedendo and mandamus will lie when a trial court has 
refused to render, or unduly delayed rendering, a judgment.”  State ex rel. 
Reynolds v. Basinger, 99 Ohio St.3d 303, 2003-Ohio-3631, 791 N.E.2d 459, ¶ 5.  
Sup.R. 7(A) provides, “The judgment entry specified * * * in Criminal Rule 32 
shall be filed and journalized within thirty days of the * * * decision.  If the entry 
is not prepared and presented by counsel, it shall be prepared and filed by the 
court.”  “ ‘If the trial court refuses upon request or motion to journalize its 
January Term, 2008 
3 
decision, either party may compel the court to act by filing a writ of mandamus or 
a writ of procedendo’ ” because “[a]bsent journalization of the judgment, [a 
party] cannot appeal it.”    (Emphasis sic.)  State ex rel. Grove v. Nadel (1998), 81 
Ohio St.3d 325, 327, 691 N.E.2d 275, quoting Kennedy v. Cleveland (1984), 16 
Ohio App.3d 399, 401-402, 16 OBR 469, 476 N.E.2d 683; Cleveland v. 
Trzebuckowski (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 524, 527, 709 N.E.2d 1148. 
{¶ 9} In State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197, 2008-Ohio-3330, 893 N.E.2d 
163, syllabus, we held that a “judgment of conviction is a final appealable order 
under R.C. 2505.02 when it sets forth (1) the guilty plea, the jury verdict, or the 
finding of the court upon which the conviction is based; (2) the sentence; (3) the 
signature of the judge; and (4) entry on the journal by the clerk of courts.”  The 
sentencing entry here fully complied with Crim.R. 32(C) and constituted a final 
appealable order because it sets forth the jury verdict, the sentence, the judge’s 
signature, and the entry on the journal by the clerk of courts. 
{¶ 10} Thus, based on Baker, neither the common pleas court nor the 
judge either refused to render or unduly delayed rendering a judgment in the 
criminal case, and Agosto is thus not entitled to the requested extraordinary relief 
in mandamus and procedendo. 
{¶ 11} Moreover, Agosto had an adequate remedy at law by way of 
appeal from the sentencing entry to raise his contentions.  See Reynolds, 99 Ohio 
St.3d 303, 2003-Ohio-3631, 791 N.E.2d 459, ¶ 8 (“neither a writ of procedendo 
nor a writ of mandamus will issue if an adequate remedy exists in the ordinary 
course of law”); State ex rel. Fontanella v. Kontos, 117 Ohio St.3d 514, 2008-
Ohio-1431, 885 N.E.2d 220, ¶ 8. 
{¶ 12} In fact, Agosto has already exercised his right to appeal the 
judgment in the criminal case, albeit unsuccessfully, and he could have raised his 
present claims in that appeal.  See Everett v. Eberlin, 114 Ohio St.3d 199, 2007-
Ohio-3832, 870 N.E.2d 1190, ¶ 6 (the “mere fact that [petitioner] has already 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
unsuccessfully invoked some of these alternate remedies does not thereby entitle 
him to the requested extraordinary relief * * *”). 
{¶ 13} Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of 
appeals dismissing Agosto’s complaint for writs of mandamus and/or procedendo. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jose Agosto Jr., pro se. 
 
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Mary H. 
McGrath, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees. 
______________________