Opinion ID: 6316247
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: {¶ 6} We review de novo the court of appeals’ dismissal of Harris’s mandamus action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See State ex rel. Crangle v. Summit Cty. Common Pleas Court, 162 Ohio St.3d 488, 2020-Ohio-4871, 165 N.E.3d 1250, ¶ 5. To prevail on his mandamus claim, Harris must show (1) a clear legal right to the requested relief, (2) a clear legal duty on the part of the appellees to provide it, and (3) the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. Id. at ¶ 6. {¶ 7} Harris contends that he is entitled to a new sentencing hearing and a refund of monies paid to the clerk of courts because the trial court did not properly impose the fine and court costs specified in the sentencing entry. His claim for relief relies on the premise that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to include terms in the sentencing entry that Judge Schott did not pronounce at the sentencing hearing. But even if we were to accept the premise that Judge Nurre imposed court 1. Harris captioned his petition in the First District as an action for “writ of mandamus/procedendo.” However, Harris sought only a writ of mandamus in the body of his petition, and his brief in this court does not argue for relief in procedendo. 3 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO costs and a fine that Judge Schott did not include in Harris’s sentence, that inconsistency would not render Harris’s sentence void. {¶ 8} A sentence is void—and subject to collateral attack in an extraordinary writ action—when the sentencing court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case or personal jurisdiction over the accused. State v. Harper, 160 Ohio St.3d 480, 2020-Ohio-2913, 159 N.E.3d 248, ¶ 42; see also State v. Henderson, 161 Ohio St.3d 285, 2020-Ohio-4784, 162 N.E.3d 776, ¶ 1 (plurality opinion) (“sentences based on an error    are voidable if the court imposing the sentence has jurisdiction over the case and the defendant”). Harris does not argue that the trial court lacked personal or subject-matter jurisdiction in his criminal case; he argues instead that the sentencing entry was inconsistent with the sentence pronounced in court. This argument challenges the trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction, and if the challenge were valid, it would render Harris’s sentence voidable, not void. See Crangle at ¶ 10. This case therefore falls within the general rule that a mandamus action is not an appropriate vehicle for challenging sentencing errors. Id. {¶ 9} For these reasons, the court of appeals correctly dismissed Harris’s petition. Judgment affirmed. O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, and BRUNNER, JJ., concur. FISCHER, J., not participating. _________________ Lionel Harris, pro se. Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Paula E. Adams, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees. _________________ 4