Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. PEREZ WORLEY RELATOR
THE HONORABLE DICK AMBROSE RESPONDENT
of Mandamus Motion No. 514864 Order No. 515758
RELATOR Perez Worley, pro se Inmate No. 690264 Trumbull
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT Michael C. O'Malley Cuyahoga
County Prosecutor By: James E. Moss Assistant County
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
J. STEWART, P.J.
Relator, Perez Worley, instituted the present action seeking
a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent judge to engage
in a resentencing hearing and issue a final, appealable order
in the underlying criminal case, Cuyahoga C.P. No.
CR-14-587709-B. We grant the respondent judge's motion
for summary judgment and deny the writ.
On April 2, 2015, following a jury trial, Worley was found
guilty and sentenced for aggravated murder, improperly
handing a firearm in a motor vehicle, and having a weapon
while under disability. State v. Worley, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 103105, 2016-Ohio-2722, _ 4.
Worley was given an aggregate sentence of 28 years to life.
Id. This court affirmed the convictions in his
direct appeal. Id. at _ 1.
In December 2017, Worley filed a "motion for final
appealable order pursuant to R.C. 2505.02(A), Crim.R. 32(C)
and Article IV 3(B)(2)." The trial court denied the
motion at the end of December. Worley then initiated the
present action on January 30, 2018. The respondent judge
filed a motion for summary judgment, to which no opposition
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.
Initially, we must note that Worley's petition is
defective. Civ.R. 10(A) requires that the caption of the
complaint include the name and address of each party.
Worley's petition only includes the name of each party. A
failure to comply with Civ.R. 10 is grounds for dismissal.
Greene v. Turner, 151 Ohio St.3d 513,
2017-Ohio-8305, 90 N.E.3d 901, ¶ 5, citing Kneuss v.
Sloan, 146 Ohio St.3d 248, 2016-Ohio-3310, 54 N.E.3d
1242, ¶ 11, citing State ex rel. Sherrills v.
State, 91 Ohio St.3d 133, 133, 742 N.E.2d 651 (2001).
Even if the complaint was proper in form, it is moot.
The certified journal entry attached to Worley's
complaint indicates that the trial court failed to impose
postrelease control on Count 11, improperly handling a
firearm in a motor vehicle, and Count 13, having a weapon
while under disability. Worley goes on to assert that,
despite his previous direct appeal, this deprives him of a
final, appealable order capable of invoking appellate
jurisdiction. For support, he cites to State v.
Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92, 2010-Ohio-6238, 942 N.E.2d
In Fischer, the Ohio Supreme Court determined that a
failure to impose postrelease control resulted in a void
sentence. Id. at paragraph one of the syllabus. The
court clarified, however, that it is only the improper
portion of the sentence that is void. Id. at
_ 28. The Ohio Supreme Court reaffirmed that
a failure to impose postrelease control resulted in a void
sanction only. State v. Holdcroft, 137 Ohio St.3d
526, 2013-Ohio-5014, 1 N.E.3d 382, paragraph two of the
syllabus. Therefore, only the postrelease control portion of
Worley's sentence is void. He may challenge that portion
of his sentence at any time, and res judicata is not
applicable to such a challenge. Fischer at
_ 40. Worley is correct that the respondent
judge has a duty to impose postrelease control because Worley
is still serving those sentences.  See Ohio Adm. Code
Worley is, however, incorrect that there is no final order
capable of invoking appellate jurisdiction in his underlying
criminal case. The Fischer and Holdcroft
courts determined that res judicata applies to validly
imposed portions of the sentence, and a sentencing journal
entry that fails to include postrelease control is still a
final, appealable order as to those portions of the sentence
that were validly imposed, including the finding of guilt.
Fischer at _ 40; Holdcroft
at _ 9.
In response to Worley's complaint, the respondent judge
filed a motion for summary judgment where it was acknowledged
that postrelease control was required but not imposed on
Counts 11 and 13. The respondent judge attached a certified
copy of a journal entry ...