State ex rel. Ellis v. Chambers-Smith

1

2023-Ohio-2671

State ex rel. James P. Ellis, Relator, v. Annette Chambers-Smith, Director, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections, Respondent.

No. 22AP-14

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District

August 1, 2023

IN MANDAMUS ON OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE'S DECISION

On brief:

James P. Ellis, pro se.

Dave Yost, Attorney General, and George Horvath, for respondent.

DECISION

BEATTY BLUNT, P.J.

{¶ 1} Relator, James P. Ellis, has filed this original action requesting that this court issue a writ of mandamus ordering respondent to "employ, execute, and enforce" an August 2, 2021 order issued by the trial court in his criminal case. Despite the fact that the entry is captioned "Entry Granting Motion for Jail Time Credit" and purports to take no other action but to grant Ellis "credit for time served for a total of 373 days of credit (as of the date of sentencing), plus conveyance time to the institution," see Aug 2, 2021 Entry State v. Ellis, Hamilton C.P. No. B-940335 (attached to relator's complaint), Ellis has insisted throughout the current case that the entry is a "resentencing entry." He apparently believes (but does not outright claim) that because the August 2, 2021 entry does not restate or reimpose his underlying criminal sentence and because the state did not appeal from the August 2, 2021 entry that the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections ("ODRC"), no longer has any judgment entry authorizing his confinement.

{¶ 2} Pursuant to Civ.R. 53 and Loc.R. 13(M) of the Tenth District Court of Appeals, this matter was referred to a magistrate. Both relator and respondent filed motions for summary judgment, and relator filed several additional procedural motions and attempts to strike respondent's filings. The magistrate considered the action on its merits and issued a decision, including findings of fact and conclusions of law, which is appended hereto. The magistrate concluded that relator could not demonstrate that he was entitled to extraordinary relief in mandamus and recommended that this court deny relator's motion for summary judgment, grant respondent's motion for summary judgment and deny the requested writ of mandamus. Relator filed a timely objection to the magistrate's decision, and the matter is now before this court for decision.

{¶ 3} Relator has not specifically set forth individual objections to the magistrate's decision, but instead objects to the magistrate's decision in general. Compare Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(ii) and (iii); Loc.R. 2(B). Moreover, in his objection, relator has recast his argument and request for relief; in his complaint, relator states that he was entitled to "a writ of mandamus issue compelling respondent(s) to employ, execute and enforce the 'August 2, 2021-resentencing entry' as it is written." (Jan. 5, 2022 Compl. at 19.) But in his objection, relator now argues that what he seeks is a writ compelling respondent to comply with one of its internal policies, which he claims, "places a clear legal duty on Respondents' [sic] to: contact the committing court immediately,' . . . and nothing more." (Apr. 13, 2023 Relator's Obj. at 5.) As relator now argues:

The dispute here is set upon the challenge as to whether: (1) the 'August 2, 2021 'Entry' is a *resentencing entry; (2) Respondents are under a clear legal duty "to contact the committing court immediately" where an inaccuracy exists on the face of said entry pursuant to ODRC Policy 52 RCP 01; and, (3) the entry constitutes a final appealable order.

Id. at 6. Relator argues that all three questions must be answered in the affirmative. We disagree, and for clarity we will address relator's questions in reverse order, as they interrelate in a way that can be confusing.

{¶ 4} Regarding the third question, it is clear that the magistrate correctly held that under R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(iii) a trial court "retains continuing jurisdiction to correct any error not previously raised at sentencing" in the calculation and awarding of jail credit under R.C. 2967.191, and if "the court changes the number of days in its determination or redetermination, the court shall cause the entry granting that change to be delivered to the department of rehabilitation and correction without delay." R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(iii). Here, the court did just as it was requested, and the magistrate correctly found that "the uncontroverted record reflects that ODRC has complied with any duty arising under R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(v) to apply the trial court's revised calculation of relator's jail-time credit." (Mag.'s Decision at 8.) And in State v. Thompson, 147 Ohio St.3d 29, 2016-Ohio-2769, ¶ 13, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that a "trial court's determination of a motion for jail-time credit pursuant to R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(iii) constitutes a special proceeding and affects a substantial right. Accordingly, we hold that the denial of a motion for jail-time credit pursuant to R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(iii) is a final, appealable order." The August 2, 2021 order directly mirrors the one found to be final and appealable in Thompson.

{¶ 5} Regarding the second question, the only alleged "inaccuracy" that relator has identified is that the August 2, 2021 "resentencing" entry does not actually contain a finding of guilt or a sentence. But that puts the cart before the horse-the entry does not purport to be a resentencing entry, after all. Relator believes that such an entry is always mandated to be a resentencing entry, but as Thompson demonstrates that does not seem to be the case. In any event, if there is no "inaccuracy," then there is no reason for ODRC "to contact the committing court immediately." Accordingly, it is only if the August 2, 2021 entry is in fact a "resentencing entry" that the purported duty could even be alleged to exist.

{¶ 6} And that brings us to relator's first question. In support of his argument that the entry must necessarily be a resentencing entry, relator relies upon State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303, 2011-Ohio-5204, and State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197, 2008-Ohio-3330, to argue that because an entry issued in a criminal case under R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(iii) does not contain an "adjudication of guilty and an ensuing sentence" it cannot be a final appealable order, and thereby implies that it is a "resentencing entry" without a sentence. But as can be seen, this question assumes what it attempts to prove-relator can only argue that the August 2, 2021 entry is a "resentencing" entry if he can show that only resentencing entries are final orders. And as we have seen, Thompson held precisely the opposite. There is literally nothing in the August 2, 2021 entry to suggest it is anything other than an entry granting additional R.C. 2967.191 confinement credit that complies with Thompson. There is certainly no reason for this court to treat it as a "resentencing entry" when it does not even purport to be one.

{¶ 7} In summary, both the trial court, in granting relator additional jail-time credit and respondent in recording that credit acted properly, and relator has not and cannot show that either has failed to perform a clear legal duty to which they were obliged. Therefore, we overrule relator's objection to the magistrate's decision and adopt that decision as our own, including the findings of fact and the conclusions of law therein. Relator has failed to demonstrate he is entitled to extraordinary relief, and in accordance with the magistrate's decision, the requested writ of mandamus is denied.

Objection overruled; writ of mandamus denied.

JAMISON and LELAND, JJ., concur.

APPENDIX

Rendered on March 31, 2023

IN MANDAMUS ON MOTIONS

MAGISTRATE'S DECISION

JOSEPH E. WENGER IV JUDGE

{¶ 8} Relator, James P. Ellis, has filed this original action seeking a writ of mandamus against respondent, Annette Chambers-Smith, in her capacity as director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("ODRC").

I. Findings of Fact

{¶ 9} 1. Relator is incarcerated at Marion Correctional Institution in Marion, Ohio.

{¶ 10} 2. Respondent Annette Chambers-Smith is the director of ODRC, a state governmental agency responsible for, among other duties, operating Ohio's prison system.

{¶ 11} 3. In 1995, relator was sentenced in two criminal cases in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas.

{¶ 12} 4. In Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas case No. B 9403355, relator was found guilty, following trial by jury, of aggravated murder in violation of R.C. 2903.01, which was listed in the indictment as count three, and aggravated burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.11, which was listed in the indictment as count four. On March 31, 1995, relator was sentenced to incarceration "for a period of life imprisonment in count #3 and ten (10) years to a maximum of twenty-five (25) years with ten (10) years actual incarceration in count #4 to run consecutively to count #3 with credit of two hundred ninety-six (296) days given for time served." (Emphasis omitted.) (ODRC's Certified Record at 6.)

{¶ 13} 5. In Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas case No. B 940513, following a plea and finding of guilty for the offense of vandalism in violation of R.C. 2909.05, relator was sentenced on July 27, 1995 to a period of incarceration of six months with credit for six months served. (ODRC's Certified Record at 14.)

{¶ 14} 6. In case No. B 9403355, the trial court granted relator's motion for jail- time credit in an entry filed on August 2, 2021. The trial court granted relator "373 days credit (as of the date of sentencing), plus conveyance time to the institution" and stated that "[t]his credit includes any credit previously given." (ODRC's Certified Record at 5.)

{¶ 15} 7. On January 5, 2022, relator filed his...