Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Trumbull
STATE OF OHIO ex rel. THOMAS REESE, Relator,
THE HONORABLE ANDREW D. LOGAN, Respondent.
Original Action for Writ of Mandamus.
Watkins, Trumbull County Prosecutor, (For Respondent).
Reese, pro se, (Relator).
Pending before this court are relator, Thomas Reese's,
"Complaint for Writ of Mandamus," construed as a
petition for writ of mandamus, and respondent, Honorable
Judge Andrew D. Logan's, "Motion in Opposition to
Relator's Writ of Mandamus and Motion to Dismiss."
For the following reasons, we dismiss Reese's petition.
On April 29, 2002, following a jury trial, Reese was
convicted of six counts, including Felonious Assault,
Attempted Murder, Criminal Damaging, and Aggravated Menacing.
The trial court issued a May 21, 2002 Entry on Sentence,
ordering Reese to serve a total prison term of 25 years. On
appeal, this court reversed based upon issues regarding
consultation with counsel prior to jury trial waiver,
State v. Reese, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2002-T-0068,
2004-Ohio-341, but, on the State's appeal, the Ohio
Supreme Court reinstated Reese's convictions and
sentence. State v. Reese, 106 Ohio St.3d 65,
2005-Ohio-3806, 831 N.E.2d 983.
Reese filed a Motion for Resentencing in the trial court on
February 21, 2019, for the failure to merge allied offenses,
which was denied in an April 2, 2019 Judgment Entry. Reese
subsequently filed identical Motions for Final Appealable
Order on March 18 and June 3, 2019, arguing that the trial
court had not issued a final entry of conviction and sentence
due to its failure to impose proper post-release control. In
a June 20, 2019 Judgment Entry, Judge Logan denied the
motions requesting a final appealable order, finding the
request not well taken "for the reasons set forth in
this Court's previous Judgment Entry docketed April 2,
On July 2, 2019, Reese filed his "Complaint for Writ of
Mandamus," requesting a writ compelling Judge Logan to
"bring him back in front of the trial court to issue a
final appealable order and hold a new sentencing hearing to
properly impose post-release control sanctions.
Judge Logan filed a "Motion in Opposition to
Relator's Writ of Mandamus and Motion to Dismiss" on
July 9, 2019, arguing that he had ruled on Reese's
motionand had not refused to issue a judgment
such that mandamus would be warranted.
Pursuant to R.C. 2731.01, mandamus is "a writ * * *
commanding the performance of an act which the law specially
enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or
station." "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).
Judge Logan contends that the court has already issued a
final appealable order by ruling on the issue of resentencing
and, thus, mandamus is unwarranted and the matter must be
dismissed pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6). See State ex rel.
Breaux v. Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga Cty., 50
Ohio St.2d 164, 363 N.E.2d 743 (1977) ("A writ of
mandamus will not issue to compel a public official to
perform a legal duty which has been completed.").
A motion to dismiss pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) tests the
sufficiency of the complaint and, "[i]n order to dismiss
a complaint under Civ.R. 12 or to enter judgment on the
pleadings, a court must be convinced, based solely on the
allegations in the complaint, that the plaintiff can prove no
set of facts entitling him to recovery." (Citation
omitted.) Johns v. Allen, 11th Dist. Trumbull No.
2013-T-0007, 2013-Ohio-2045, ¶ 7. A Civ.R. 12(B)(6)
motion is properly granted in instances where there is an
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law available.
State ex rel. Hummel v. Sadler, 96 Ohio St.3d 84,
2002-Ohio-3605, 771 N.E.2d 853, ¶ 20.
Reese does not contest that the court ruled upon his 2019
motions for a final order. Rather, he contends that the
court's 2002 sentencing entry was void because of its
failure to include post-release control advisements, there is
no final order of conviction and ...