# State ex rel. Lockhart v. Whitney

> Ohio Supreme Court · September 28, 2011 · 130 Ohio St. 3d 95

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2691027

## Case

- **Full name:** The State Ex Rel. Lockhart, Appellant, v. Whitney, Judge, Appellee
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** September 28, 2011
- **Citations:** 130 Ohio St. 3d 95; 2011 Ohio 4896; 2011 WL 4502877
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** O'Connor, Pfeifer, Stratton, O'Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp, Brown
- **Cited by:** 8 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2691027

## Opinion text

[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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2691027. Public record. Not legal advice.