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. Reese v. Logan

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Trumbull

August 26, 2019

STATE OF OHIO ex rel. THOMAS REESE, Relator,
v.
THE HONORABLE ANDREW D. LOGAN, Respondent.

          Original Action for Writ of Mandamus.

         Judgment Petition dismissed.

          Dennis Watkins, Trumbull County Prosecutor, (For Respondent).

          Thomas Reese, pro se, (Relator).

          OPINION

          PER CURIAM

         {¶1} 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.

         {¶2} 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.

         {¶3} 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, 2019."

         {¶4} 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.

         {¶5} 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 motion[1]and had not refused to issue a judgment such that mandamus would be warranted.

         {¶6} 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).

         {¶7} 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.").

         {¶8} 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.

         {¶9} 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 ...


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.