Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State ex rel. Hudson v. Sloan

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Trumbull

January 16, 2018

STATE OF OHIO ex rel. ANTHONY J. HUDSON, Petitioner,
v.
BRIGHAM SLOAN, WARDEN, Respondent.

         Original Action for Writs of Mandamus and Habeas Corpus.

          Anthony J. Hudson, pro se, (Petitioner).

          Mike DeWine, Ohio Attorney General, State Office Tower, and Jerri L Fosnaught, (For Respondent).

          OPINION

          THOMAS R. WRIGHT, P.J.

         {¶1} Relator, Anthony J. Hudson, alternatively seeks a writ of mandamus or writ of habeas corpus compelling respondent, Warden Brigham Sloan, to release him from prison. We grant Sloan's motion for summary judgment as Hudson is not entitled to the requested relief.

         {¶2} Mandamus is a writ issued to a public officer to perform an act "which the law specially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office." R.C. 2731.01. "For a writ of mandamus to issue, the relator must establish a clear legal right to the relief prayed for; the respondent must have a clear legal duty to perform the act; and the relator must have no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law." State ex rel. Widmer v. Mohney, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2007-G-2776, 2008-Ohio-1028, ¶31, citing State ex rel. Natl. Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 38 Ohio St.3d 79, 80, 526 N.E.2d 786 (1988).

         {¶3} In a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner has the burden of proving his right to release from prison. Chari v. Vore, 91 Ohio St.3d 323, 325, 2001-Ohio-49, 744 N.E.2d 763. "[T]he petitioner must first introduce evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity that attaches to all court proceedings." (Citation omitted.) Id

         {¶4} Sloan moves for summary judgment and asks us to dismiss Hudson's petitions for habeas corpus and mandamus. Hudson likewise moves for summary judgment seeking an order directing Sloan to release him from prison.

         {¶5} Summary judgment is appropriate pursuant to Civ.R. 56 when the movant shows: (1) there is no genuine issue of material fact; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, said party being entitled to have the evidence construed most strongly in his favor. Turner v. Turner, 67 Ohio St.3d 337, 339-340, 617 N.E.2d 1123 (1993); Bostic v. Connor, 37 Ohio St.3d 144, 146, 524 N.E.2d 881 (1988). The moving party bears the burden of proving no genuine issue of material fact exists. Mitseff v. Wheeler, 38 Ohio St.3d 112, 115, 526 N.E.2d 798 (1988).

         {¶6} Both Hudson's petition for a writ of mandamus and his petition for habeas corpus seek his release from prison based on our prior decision reversing and vacating his penalty enhancement and ordering the trial court to resentence him to the lowest level of the offense. State v. Hudson, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2014-T-0097, 2017-Ohio-615, ¶40. However, in so ruling, we relied on the Supreme Court's decision in State v. Gonzales, 150 Ohio St.3d 261, 2016-Ohio-8319, 81 N.E.3d 405, ¶22 reconsideration granted, decision vacated, 150 Ohio St.3d 276, 2017-Ohio-777, 81 N.E.3d 419, "Gonzales I." Thereafter, the Supreme Court reconsidered its decision in Gonzales I and did an about-face on the determinative issue. State v. Gonzales, 150 Ohio St.3d 276, 2017-Ohio-777, 81 N.E.3d 419, ¶3, reconsideration denied, 149 Ohio St.3d 1409, 2017-Ohio-2822, 74 N.E.3d 466, "Gonzales II."

         {¶7} Thus, we reconsidered our decision and affirmed the trial court's decision in full based on Gonzales II. Summary judgment in Sloan's favor is therefore warranted because Hudson is not entitled to release as a matter of law. Hudson's motion for summary judgment is overruled.

          TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J., concurs.

          DIANE V. GRENDELL, J., concurs in judgment only with a Concurring Opinion.

         {¶8} I concur with the majority's decision to deny Hudson's petition for a writ of mandamus or a writ of habeas corpus compelling his release from prison since he is properly incarcerated due to this court's affirmance of his sentence upon reconsideration. It is necessary, however, to emphasize that, contrary to the majority's contention, the well-reasoned opinion of the Supreme Court in Gonzales II,150 Ohio St.3d 276, 2017-Ohio-777, 81 N.E.3d 419, is not an "about-face." Further, it is a proper application of this state's ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.