[Cite as State ex rel. Teague v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 2011-Ohio-2083.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 96455 

STATE OF OHIO, EX REL., 

CURTIS TEAGUE

RELATOR 

vs. 

CUYAHOGA COUNTY COURT OF 

COMMON PLEAS, ET AL.

RESPONDENT 

JUDGMENT: 

WRIT DENIED 

Writ of Mandamus and Procedendo 

Motion No. 442830 

Order No. 443980 

RELEASED DATE: April 27, 2011 

FOR RELATOR 

Curtis Teague, Pro Se 
2

Inmate No. 502-427 

1150 N. Main Street 

Mansfield, Ohio 44901 

FOR RESPONDENTS 

William D. Mason 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

By: James E. Mess 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 

9th Floor Justice Center 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 

PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, P.J.: 

{¶ 1} Relator, Curtis Teague, is the defendant in State v. Teague, Cuyahoga Cty. 

Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-468399, which has been assigned to respondent 

judge. Teague contends that the March 17, 2006 sentencing entry in Case No. 

CR-468399 is not a final appealable order because that entry does not dispose of all of the 

counts and specifications in the indictment. He requests that this court issue relief in 

mandamus and/or procedendo to compel respondents “to issue a journal entry which fully 

complies with Crim.R. 32(C) and constitutes a final appealable order.” Complaint, ¶13. 
3

{¶ 2} Teague was indicted on five counts: 1. Aggravated murder with one-, 

three- and five-year specifications; 2. Attempted murder with one-, three- and five-year 

specifications; 3. Attempted murder with one-, three- and five-year specifications; 4. 

Murder with one-, three- and five-year specifications; and 5. Having a weapon while 

under disability. Copies of the five counts in the indictment are attached to the 

complaint. 

{¶ 3} Teague observes that the March 17, 2006 sentencing entry refers only to 

count four as amended to murder with a three-year firearm specification. He argues that 

this court should apply State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197, 2008-Ohio-3330, 893 N.E.2d 

163, as requiring that a sentencing entry include the disposition of each count and 

specification in an indictment. 

{¶ 4} Respondents have filed a motion for summary judgment. Attached to the 

motion for summary judgment is a copy of the February 15, 2006 journal entry 

memorializing Teague’s plea. That is, the trial court amended count four to delete the 

one- and five-year firearm specifications and Teague pled guilty to murder with a 

three-year firearm specification. The other four counts were nolled. 

{¶ 5} In State v. Robinson, Cuyahoga App. No. 90731, 2008-Ohio-5580, 

Robinson was indicted on five counts, two of which included schoolyard specifications. 

The jury found Robinson guilty of all five charges but not guilty of the schoolyard 
4

specifications. This court held that the sentencing entry was “a final appealable 

order-even though the judgment does not include the means of exoneration of the 

schoolyard specifications.” Id. ¶12. (Emphasis added.) The Robinson court also 

stated: 

{¶ 6} “On the authority of Baker, we conclude that a judgment of conviction does 

not need to dispose of every charge in an indictment, including dismissed or nolled 

counts, or not guilty findings. But it must include the sentence and the ‘means of 

conviction’ — meaning how the defendant was convicted of each charge (one of four 

ways: a defendant may plead guilty, plead no contest, be found guilty by a jury, or be 

found guilty in a bench trial). See Baker “¶12, 14.” Id. ¶18. 

{¶ 7} Teague’s fundamental argument is that the March 17, 2006 sentencing entry 

is not a final appealable order because it does not contain the means of exoneration. In 

light of Robinson, Teague does not have a clear legal right to the relief requested nor do 

respondents have a clear legal duty to modify the sentencing entry. We also note that 

Teague not only had an adequate remedy by way of appeal, he pursued that remedy. 

That is, this court granted Teague leave to file a delayed appeal from the March 17, 2006 

sentencing entry and assigned counsel to represent him. The court also granted 

appellant’s oral motion to withdraw the appeal. See State v. Teague, Cuyahoga App. 

No. 88801, Entry No. 399037, July 26, 2007. As a consequence, Teague has not 
5

established a basis for granting relief in mandamus or procedendo. 

{¶ 8} Accordingly, respondents’ motion for summary judgment is granted. 

Relator to pay costs. The clerk is directed to serve upon the parties notice of this 

judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. Civ.R. 58(B). 

Writ denied.

_________________________________________________ 

PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, PRESIDING JUDGE 

JAMES J. SWEENEY, J., and 

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR