Opinion

State ex rel. Lockhart v. Whitney

  • 130 Ohio St. 3d 95
  • 2011 Ohio 4896
  • 2011 WL 4502877
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Sep 28, 2011
Status
Published
On the bench
O'Connor, Pfeifer, Stratton, O'Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp, Brown
Cited by
8 cases
Authority
More cited than 75.0%

The opinion

[Cite as State ex rel. Lockhart v. Whitney, 130 Ohio St.3d 95, 2011-Ohio-4896.]

THE STATE EX REL. LOCKHART, APPELLANT, v. WHITNEY, JUDGE, APPELLEE.

[Cite as State ex rel. Lockhart v. Whitney, 130 Ohio St.3d 95, 2011-Ohio-4896.]

Writs sought to compel issuance of new sentencing entry—Sentencing entry

complied with Crim.R. 32(C)—Court of appeals judgment dismissing

petition for writs of mandamus and procedendo affirmed.

(No. 2011-0822—Submitted September 21, 2011—Decided September 28, 2011.)

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Delaware County,

No. 10 CAD 12 0094, 2011-Ohio-2023.

__________________

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the

petition of appellant, John C. Lockhart Jr., for writs of mandamus and

procedendo. Lockhart seeks the writs to compel appellee, Delaware County

Court of Common Pleas Judge W. Duncan Whitney, to issue a sentencing entry in

Lockhart’s criminal case that complies with Crim.R. 32. Lockhart challenges the

propriety of Judge Whitney’s December 2009 nunc pro tunc sentencing entry.

{¶ 2} Lockhart’s claims for extraordinary relief lack merit because the

sentencing entry fully complied with Crim.R. 32(C) by including the findings of

the jury upon which his convictions are based, the sentence, the signature of the

judge, and the time stamp indicating journalization by the clerk of court. See

State ex rel. Cunningham v. Lindeman, 126 Ohio St.3d 481, 2010-Ohio-4388, 935

N.E.2d 393, ¶ 1. “Neither procedendo nor mandamus will compel the

performance of a duty that has already been performed.” State ex rel. Kreps v.

Christiansen (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 313, 318, 725 N.E.2d 663; State ex rel. Rose

v. McGinty, 123 Ohio St.3d 86, 2009-Ohio-4050, 914 N.E.2d 366, ¶ 2.

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶ 3} Therefore, the court of appeals correctly dismissed Lockhart’s

petition, and we affirm that judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL,

LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur.

__________________

John C. Lockhart Jr., pro se.

Carol Hamilton O’Brien, Delaware County Prosecuting Attorney, and

Aric I. Hochstettler, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

______________________

2

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.