[Cite as State ex rel. Evans v. Medina Cty. Court of Common Pleas , 2020-Ohio-2979.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF MEDINA )

STATE OF OHIO EX REL. MICHAEL L. EVANS Relator

v. MEDINA COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Respondent C.A. No. 20CA0012-M

ORIGINAL ACTION IN MANDAMUS

Dated: May 18, 2020

PER CURIAM. {¶1} Michael L. Evans has petitioned this Court for a writ of mandam us to order Respondent, Medina County Court of Common Pleas, where his case is assigned to Judge Christopher Collier, to issue a new sentencing entry in one doc ument. The Common Pleas Court moved to dismiss, and Mr. Evans responded in opposition. For the following reasons, this Court grants the motion to dismiss. {¶2} “For a writ of mandamus to issue, a relator must demonstrate th at (1) the relator has a clear legal right to the relief prayed for, (2) r espondent is under a corresponding clear legal duty to perform the requested acts, a nd (3) relator has no plain and adequate legal remedy.” State ex rel. Serv. Emp. Internatl. Union, Dist. 925 v. State Emp. Relations Bd. , 81 Ohio St.3d 173, 176 (1998). The petitioner must demonstra te all three elements in order for this Court to grant the writ of man damus. “A court can dismissC.A. No. 20CA0020-M Page 2 of 5 a mandamus action under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if, after all factual allegations of the complai nt are presumed true and all reasonable inferences are made in relator’s favor, it appears b eyond doubt that he can prove no set of facts entitling him to the requested writ of ma ndamus.” State ex rel.

Russell v. Thornton , 111 Ohio St.3d 409, 2006-Ohio-5858, ¶ 9. {¶3} Mr. Evans set forth the long procedural history of his case in his complaint. He was indicted on various offenses in 2006 and a jury found hi m guilty in 2007. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences and provided an incom plete postrelease control notification stating that it was optional. He appealed his con viction, which this Court affirmed. State v. Evans , 9th Dist. Medina No. 07CA0057-M, 2008-Ohio-4772. Mr. Evans did not challenge the improper postrelease control notifi cation in his direct appeal, which the Ohio Supreme Court has now recognized is required bec ause an error in the imposition of postrelease control renders that part of the sent ence voidable rather than void. State v. Harper , Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-2913, ¶ 4. {¶4} While Mr. Evans’ direct appeal was pending, the trial court fil ed a nunc pro tunc entry stating that postrelease control was mandatory. Aft er this Court affirmed, Mr. Evans appealed to the Supreme Court, which did not accept juris diction. {¶5} In 2009, Mr. Evans filed a petition to vacate his void sentence , which the trial court denied. This Court affirmed, holding that the sent ence was not void, but recognizing the trial court could correct the imposition of pos trelease control pursuant to

R.C. 2929.191. State v. Evans , 9th Dist. Medina No. 09CA0102-M, 2010-Ohio-2514.C.A. No. 20CA0020-M Page 3 of 5 {¶6} In 2010, the trial court held a hearing, pursuant to R.C. 2929. 191, to correct postrelease control. The court set forth a complete postreleas e control notification. The trial court also reimposed the original prison sentence. Mr. E vans appealed and this Court affirmed the correct postrelease control notification, but vaca ted the attempted reimposition of sentence, concluding that the statute only auth orized the trial court to correct postrelease control. S tate v. Evans , 9th Dist. Medina No. 10CA0127-M, 2011- Ohio-4992. {¶7} The trial court held another hearing, but it did not file an en try following that hearing. Mr. Evans moved the trial court to enter a judgm ent, which the trial court denied. Mr. Evans attempted to appeal that order, but this Cou rt dismissed for lack of a final, appealable order. State v. Evans , 9th Dist. Medina No. 13CA0049-M. Almost seven years later, Mr. Evans filed this mandamus action. {¶8} In his complaint, Mr. Evans asked this Court to order Responden t to issue a final, appealable, order. Specifically, he has alleged that he has a right to a judgment of conviction in a single judgment entry, that the trial court has a duty to issue a judgment of conviction in one entry, and he has no adequate remedy by way o f appeal. Mr. Evans relied on State v. Baker , 119 Ohio St.3d 197, 2008-Ohio-3330, for the proposition that the trial court must issue a judgment of conviction in one document

. {¶9} This Court has previously addressed the one-document issue in t he context of the correction of postrelease control. We have specifically held that when a trial court corrects postrelease control pursuant to R.C. 2929.191, the ent ry that corrects postrelease control is a final, appealable order and the original judgment of conviction stands with theC.A. No. 20CA0020-M Page 4 of 5 nunc pro tunc entry as a judgment of conviction. State v. Williams , 9th Dist. Summit No. 27101, 2014-Ohio-1608, ¶ 12. We recognized that “[i]f the Supr eme Court viewed R.C. 2929.191 as requiring trial courts to reissue the original sent encing entry along with the post-release control notification, it could have so specified.” Id. See, also, State v.

Gilcreast , 9th Dist. Summit No. 29347, 2020-Ohio-1207, ¶ 35. {¶10} The trial court does not have a duty to issue a new, “one docum ent,” judgment of conviction with the corrected postrelease control. Mr. Evans does not have a corresponding right to a single document containing his nunc pro tunc postrelease control correction and his original judgment of conviction. Ac cordingly, Mr. Evans is not entitled to a writ of mandamus. {¶11} Because Mr. Evans is not entitled to a writ of mandamus, the mo tion to dismiss is granted, and this case is dismissed. {¶12} Costs are taxed to Mr. Evans. The clerk of courts is hereby di rected to serve upon all parties not in default notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal.

See Civ.R. 58.

LYNNE S. CALL AHAN FOR THE COURT

SCHAFER, J. TEODOSIO, J. CONCUR.C.A. No. 20CA0020-M Page 5 of 5 APPEARANCES: MICHAEL L. EVANS, Pro se, Relator. S. FORREST THOMPSON, Prosecuting Attorney, and VINCENT V. VIGLU ICCI, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Respondent.