Title: State ex rel. Cunningham v. Reed

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Cunningham v. Reed, 117 Ohio St.3d 184, 2008-Ohio-855.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. CUNNINGHAM, APPELLANT, v. REED, JUDGE, ET AL., 
APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Cunningham v. Reed,  
117 Ohio St.3d 184, 2008-Ohio-855.] 
Appeal from dismissal of a petition for a writ of prohibition – Judgment affirmed. 
(No. 2007-2188 ─ Submitted February 27, 2008 ─ Decided March 5, 2008.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Allen County, No. 1-07-74. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing a petition for a writ 
of prohibition to prevent a common pleas court and one of its judges from 
proceeding with a new sentencing hearing.  Because the appellant essentially 
seeks release from prison, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
{¶ 2} In 1997, appellant, Greg Cunningham, pleaded guilty to a charge 
of felonious assault with a gun specification and was sentenced to a term of eight 
years in prison, to be served consecutively to his sentence in a separate criminal 
case.  On October 15, 2007, appellee Judge Jeffrey L. Reed of appellee Allen 
County Court of Common Pleas held a new sentencing hearing to properly advise 
Cunningham of the imposition of postrelease control.  In his judgment entry of 
sentencing, Judge Reed imposed an eight-year aggregate prison sentence and a 
term of postrelease control.  A few days later, Judge Reed issued a nunc pro tunc 
entry to specify that the sentence in that case would be served consecutively to the 
sentence in the other criminal case and scheduled another hearing for November 
to impose the consecutive sentence. 
{¶ 3} On October 30, 2007, Cunningham filed in the Court of Appeals 
for Allen County an emergency petition for a writ of prohibition to prevent Judge 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Reed and the common pleas court from conducting the November sentencing 
hearing.  Cunningham claimed that no further proceedings were authorized 
because his “sentence of incarceration has expired and he should be released from 
prison to begin his period of Post-Release Control.”  Cunningham also requested 
that if the court of appeals granted an alternative writ, it should also release him 
during the pendency of the case. 
{¶ 4} Judge Reed held the hearing on November 5 and issued an 
amended judgment entry of resentencing.  He and the common pleas court then 
filed a motion to dismiss Cunningham’s petition based on mootness due to the 
resentencing.  The court of appeals granted the motion and dismissed the petition.  
The court of appeals held that the issue was rendered moot when the hearing was 
conducted and that Cunningham had an adequate remedy at law by appeal to 
challenge the validity of the trial court’s resentencing judgment. 
{¶ 5} In his appeal as of right, Cunningham asserts that the court of 
appeals erred in dismissing his petition.  As Judge Reed concedes on appeal, 
Cunningham is correct that a “ ‘prohibition action is not necessarily rendered 
moot when the act sought to be prevented occurs before a court can rule on the 
prohibition claim.’ ”  State ex rel. Cruzado v. Zaleski, 111 Ohio St.3d 353, 2006-
Ohio-5795, 856 N.E.2d 263, ¶ 15, quoting State ex rel. Consumers’ Counsel v. 
Pub. Util. Comm., 102 Ohio St.3d 301, 2004-Ohio-2894, 809 N.E.2d 1146, ¶ 11.  
“Prohibition is not limited to prevention of future unauthorized judicial or quasi-
judicial actions.”  (Emphasis sic.)  Consumers’ Counsel at ¶ 11. 
{¶ 6} Nevertheless, we will not reverse a correct court of appeals 
judgment based on a possibly erroneous rationale.  State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio 
Parole Bd. (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 140, 141, 684 N.E.2d 1227.  Cunningham’s 
prohibition claim lacks merit because he essentially requests release from prison, 
but “habeas corpus, rather than prohibition, is the appropriate action to obtain this 
type of relief.”  State ex rel. Foster v. Belmont Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 107 
January Term, 2008 
3 
Ohio St.3d 195, 2005-Ohio-6184, 837 N.E.2d 777, ¶ 5; State ex rel. Pesci v. 
Lucci, 115 Ohio St.3d 218, 2007-Ohio-4795, 874 N.E.2d 774, ¶ 5. 
{¶ 7} Based on the foregoing, because Cunningham filed the wrong 
action, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Kenneth J. Rexford & Co., L.L.C., and Kenneth J. Rexford, for appellant. 
 
Juergen A. Waldick, Allen County Prosecuting Attorney, and Jana E. 
Emerick, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee Judge Jeffrey L. Reed. 
______________________