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 Khanin v. Clancy

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga

March 28, 2018

STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. YURIY I. KHANIN RELATOR
v.
HON. MAUREEN CLANCY, JUDGE RESPONDENT

          Writ of Mandamus Motion No. 514261 Order No. 514654

          FOR RELATOR Yuriy I. Khanin, pro se Inmate No. A454714 Marion Correctional Institution

          ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT Michael C. O'Malley Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: James E. Moss Assistant County Prosecutor The Justice Center .

          JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

          PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, JUDGE.

         {¶1} Relator, Yuriy I. Khanin, seeks a writ of mandamus compelling respondent, Judge Maureen Clancy, to resentence him. Khanin argues that the respondent judge is required to impose a period of postrelease control and her refusal to do so entitles Khanin to the relief sought through mandamus. Having reviewed the record and pertinent law, we grant the respondent judge's motion for summary judgment. The apposite facts follow.

         {¶2} In 2003, Khanin was sentenced to an agreed prison term of 35 years to life. This sentence was imposed for convictions for aggravated murder, aggravated robbery, and kidnapping. However, the trial court did not impose any period of postrelease control.

         {¶3} Khanin filed a notice of appeal and a motion for leave to file a delayed appeal in 2004. This court dismissed the untimely appeal that same year.

         {¶4} In October 2017, Khanin filed a "motion for new sentence pursuant to R.C. 2929.191." On November 14, 2017, the trial court denied the motion. After that, the respondent judge received a reply brief filed by Khanin, and again denied the motion on December 15, 2017.

         {¶5} On January 3, 2018, Khanin instituted this action attempting to require the respondent judge to hold a new sentencing hearing. The state, on behalf of the respondent judge, filed a motion for summary judgment on January 26, 2018. The main argument advanced was that the respondent judge lost jurisdiction to impose any period of postrelease control on Khanin because he had completely served the sentences on which postrelease control applied. We agree.

         Requirements for a Writ of Mandamus

         {¶6} The fundamental criteria for issuing a writ of mandamus are well established. "In order to be entitled to a writ of mandamus, relator must show (1) that he has a clear legal right to the relief prayed for, (2) that respondents are under a clear legal duty to perform the acts, and (3) that relator has no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law." State ex rel. Harris v. Rhodes, 54 Ohio St.2d 41, 42, 374 N.E.2d 641 (1978), citing State ex rel. Natl. City Bank v. Bd. of Edn., 52 Ohio St.2d 81, 369 N.E.2d 1200 (1977). All three of these requirements must be met in order for mandamus to lie.

         No Jurisdiction to Act

         {¶7} The respondent judge is under no clear legal duty to perform the requested act. While a trial court is required to impose postrelease control, when applicable, at sentencing and incorporate the advisement into the journal entry of sentence, the respondent judge has no authority to impose postrelease control on Khanin's aggravated robbery and kidnapping convictions because Khanin has fully served those five-year prison terms.

         {¶8} The Ohio Administrative Code details the manner in which ...


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.