Title: State ex rel. Jones v. Ansted

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. Jones v. Ansted, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-109.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2012-OHIO-109 
THE STATE EX REL. JONES, APPELLANT, v. ANSTED, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Jones v. Ansted,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-109.] 
Mandamus—Procedendo—Sentencing entry containing convictions, sentence, 
judge’s signature, and time stamp evidencing clerk’s entry into journal is 
final, appealable order—Writs denied. 
(No. 2011-1517—Submitted January 3, 2012—Decided January 19, 2012.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Sandusky County, 
No. S-11-024, 2011-Ohio-3714. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the 
petition of appellant, Marquise Jones, for writs of mandamus and procedendo to 
compel appellee, Sandusky County Court of Common Pleas Judge Barbara J. 
Ansted, to issue a new sentencing entry in Jones’s criminal case.  Jones argues 
that the entry issued in his case is not a final, appealable order because it fails to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
dispose of every firearm specification of which he was found guilty.  Thus, Jones 
contends, the entry does not  comply with Crim.R. 32(C) and is not a final, 
appealable order. 
{¶ 2} The October 29, 2008 sentencing entry constituted a final, 
appealable order because it set forth the fact of Jones’s convictions, the sentence, 
the judge’s signature, and the time stamp indicating the entry upon the journal by 
the clerk.  State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303, 2011-Ohio-5204, 958 N.E.2d 142, 
paragraph one of the syllabus; see also State ex rel. Lockhart v. Whitney, 130 
Ohio St.3d 95, 2011-Ohio-4896, 955 N.E.2d 994, ¶ 2; State v. Ford, 128 Ohio 
St.3d 398, 2011-Ohio-765, 945 N.E.2d 498, ¶ 17 (“firearm specification is merely 
a sentence enhancement, not a separate criminal offense”).  “[N]either mandamus 
nor procedendo will compel the performance of a duty that has already been 
performed.”  State ex rel. Tenace v. Court of Claims of Ohio (2002), 94 Ohio 
St.3d 319, 321, 762 N.E.2d 1009.  And insofar as Jones contests the failure of the 
trial court to issue multiple sentences for his firearm-specification convictions, he 
has or had an adequate remedy by way of appeal to raise his claim of sentencing 
error.  See, e.g., State ex rel. Cunningham v. Lindeman, 126 Ohio St.3d 481, 
2010-Ohio-4388, 935 N.E.2d 393, ¶ 1. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
 
Marquise Jones, pro se. 
 
Thomas L. Stierwalt, Sandusky County Prosecuting Attorney, and 
Norman P. Solze, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
_____________________