Title: State ex rel. Newell v. Gaul

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. Newell v. Gaul, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-68.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2013-OHIO-68 
THE STATE EX REL. NEWELL, APPELLANT, v. GAUL, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Newell v. Gaul, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-68.] 
Mandamus—Mandamus sought to compel trial court to revise entry issued after 
remand to comply with Crim.R. 32(C)—Crim.R. 32(C) inapplicable 
because court of appeals had not remanded cause to common pleas court 
for resentencing—Court of appeals’ judgment denying claim for writ of 
mandamus affirmed. 
(No. 2012-1585—Submitted January 9, 2013—Decided January 17, 2013.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, 
No. 98326, 2012-Ohio-4068. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment denying the claim of appellant, Timothy 
Newell, for a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, Cuyahoga County Court of 
Common Pleas Judge Daniel Gaul, to amend or revise his June 26, 1996 entry 
modifying Newell’s convictions and sentences so that it complies with Crim.R. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
32(C).  Newell cannot establish his entitlement to the requested extraordinary 
relief,  because in State v. Newell, 8th Dist. Nos. 40334 and 40335, 1980 WL 
354496, *2, the court of appeals reversed several of Newell’s convictions and 
sentences but left Newell’s remaining convictions and sentences undisturbed.  
Although the court of appeals directed the common pleas court to execute its 
judgment, id. at *3, it did not remand the cause to the common pleas court for 
resentencing.  See App.R. 12(B) (“When the court of appeals determines that the 
trial court committed error prejudicial to the appellant and that the appellant is 
entitled to have judgment or final order rendered in his favor as a matter of law, 
the court of appeals shall reverse the judgment or final order of the trial court and 
render the judgment or final order that the trial court should have rendered, or 
remand the cause to the court with instructions to render such judgment or final 
order”).  Under these circumstances, Crim.R. 32(C) is inapplicable. 
{¶ 2} Moreover, res judicata bars Newell from raising his claim that 
Judge Gaul’s June 26, 1996 entry modifying his convictions and sentences failed 
to comply with Crim.R. 32(C) when he could have raised it in his prior mandamus 
case to correct his sentence or in his appeal to this court from the court of appeals’ 
judgment.  See State ex rel. Newell v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 77 
Ohio St.3d 269, 673 N.E.2d 1299 (1997); see also Hughes v. Calabrese, 95 Ohio 
St.3d 334, 2002-Ohio-2217, 767 N.E.2d 725, ¶ 12 (“Res judicata bars the 
litigation of all claims that either were or might have been litigated in a first 
lawsuit”); State ex rel. Bridge v. Franklin Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 132 Ohio 
St.3d 494, 2012-Ohio-3327, 974 N.E.2d 102, ¶ 3 (res judicata barred petitioner 
from filing a successive writ action when he could have raised his claims in his 
previous writ action). 
{¶ 3} Finally, “any order to comply with Crim.R. 32(C) to correct a 
clerical error in his original sentencing entry would not constitute a final, 
January Term, 2013 
3 
 
appealable order from which a new appeal may be taken.”  State ex rel. Compton 
v. Sutula, 132 Ohio St.3d 35, 2012-Ohio-1653, 968 N.E.2d 476, ¶ 3. 
{¶ 4} Therefore, the court of appeals did not err in denying the writ, and 
we affirm that judgment. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Timothy Newell, pro se. 
 
Timothy J. McGinty, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and James 
E. Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
______________________