Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh District, Mahoning
STATE OF OHIO, ex rel. MICHAEL L. PAIGE, Relator,
JUDGE MAUREEN A. SWEENEY, COMMON PLEAS COURT JUDGE, Respondent.
Michael L. Paige, Pro se, for Relator.
Paul J. Gains, Mahoning County Prosecutor and Atty. Ralph M.
Rivera, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Respondent.
Cheryl L. Waite, Gene Donofrio, Carol Ann Robb, Judges.
OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Relator Michael Paige, proceeding on his own behalf, has
filed this original action for a writ of mandamus asking this
Court to compel Respondent Judge Maureen A. Sweeney of the
Mahoning County Common Pleas Court to conduct a resentencing
hearing on the imposition of postrelease control, as
instructed by this Court in State v. Paige, 7th
Dist. Mahoning No. 17 MA 0146, 2018-Ohio-2782. Counsel for
Respondent has filed a combined answer and motion to dismiss
demonstrating that Respondent has already conducted the
hearing and has filed an amended judgment entry of
The salient facts relating to Relator's underlying
conviction and sentence can be found in our decision on
Relator's direct appeal in State v. Paige, 7th
Dist. Mahoning No. 17 MA 0033, 2019-Ohio-1088, appeal not
allowed, 156 Ohio St.3d 1464, 2019-Ohio-2892, 126 N.E.3d
1164. A jury convicted Relator on one count of murder in
violation of R.C. 2903.02(A)(D), an unclassified felony, with
a firearm specification in violation of R.C. 2941.145(A)
(count two), and one count of tampering with evidence in
violation of R.C. 2921.12(A)(1)(B), a felony of the third
degree (count three). On January 24, 2017, the trial court
sentenced Relator to life imprisonment with parole
eligibility after fifteen years on the murder conviction,
three years for tampering with evidence, to be served
concurrently with the sentence imposed for murder, and three
years for the firearm specification, to be served
consecutively to the sentence imposed on the murder charge.
Following his conviction and sentencing, Relator filed a
motion regarding his sentencing on August 25, 2017 which the
trial court construed as a petition for postconviction
relief. In this motion, Relator argued that his sentencing
entry was void because it stated that he was convicted of
murder, when he was actually convicted of felony murder. He
also argued his conviction violated due process because the
state failed to prove the mens rea element of the
underlying felony for felony murder. Lastly, Relator alluded
to prejudicial error stemming from his postrelease control
The trial court denied Relator's petition as untimely. He
appealed to this Court in State v. Paige, 7th Dist.
Mahoning No. 17 MA 0146, 2018-Ohio-2782. We concluded that we
were procedurally barred from addressing Relator's first
two constitutional claims. Because he failed to present any
evidence dehors the record with his petition for
postconviction relief, these claims were required to be
raised in the direct appeal of his conviction and sentence.
However, we did determine that as his judgment entry of
sentence did not include the statutorily-mandated term of
postrelease control it was rendered void, noting that this
error may be reviewed at any time by collateral attack.
Because the trial court failed to properly impose postrelease
control at the sentencing hearing, this Court remanded the
matter to the trial court on June 29, 2018, for a new
sentencing hearing limited only to the imposition of
postrelease control and issuance of a new sentencing entry.
On November 20, 2018, Relator filed this original action in
mandamus seeking to have this Court compel the trial court to
proceed with the instructions contained in our June 29, 2018
Generally, a relator may file an original action for a writ
of mandamus or for a writ of procedendo to compel a court to
rule on a pending matter. A writ of mandamus is an
extraordinary remedy which should be exercised by this Court
with caution and issued only when the right to relief is
clear. State ex rel. Brown v. Ashtabula Cty. Bd. of
Elections, 142 Ohio St.3d 370, 2014-Ohio-4022, 31 N.E.3d
596, ¶ 11. Entitlement to a writ of mandamus requires
the relator to demonstrate: (1) a clear legal right to the
relief, (2) a clear legal duty on the respondent to provide
that relief, and (3) no other adequate remedy at law.
State ex rel. Taxpayers for Westerville Schools v.
Franklin Cty. Bd of Elections, 133 Ohio St.3d 153,
2012-Ohio-4267, 976 N.E.2d 890, ¶ 12.
As counsel for Respondent accurately contends in the combined
answer and motion to dismiss, Respondent filed an amended
judgment entry of sentence on December 14, 2018, shortly
after Relator brought this action. Respondent has attached as
an exhibit to the combined answer and motion to dismiss a
copy of the trial court's December 14, 2018 amended
judgment entry of sentence demonstrating it carried out the
instructions set forth in our June 29, 2018 decision.
Therefore, Relator's request for this Court to issue a
writ of mandamus is moot. Neither procedendo nor mandamus
will compel performance of a duty that has already been
performed. Martin v. Judges of the Lucas Cty. Court of
Common Pleas, 50 Ohio St.3d 71, 72, 552 N.E.2d 906
(1990). As such, Relator's original action seeking a writ
of mandamus is hereby dismissed.
Costs taxed against Relator. Final order. Clerk to serve
copies of this decision and judgment ...