132 Ohio St. 3d 525

The State ex rel. Duncan, Appellant, v. DeWeese, Judge, Appellee.

[Cite as State ex rel. Duncan v. DeWeese, 132 Ohio St.3d 525, 2012-Ohio-3835.]

(No. 2012-0904

Submitted August 22, 2012

Decided August 30, 2012.)

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of appellant, Roy Duncan, for a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, Richland County Common Pleas Court Judge James DeWeese, to issue a new sentencing entry. Duncan asserts that his current sentencing entry is not a final, appealable order.

{¶ 2} Contrary to Duncan’s assertion, to be final and appealable, the sentencing entry did not need to contain a disposition concerning specifications that Duncan was charged with but was not convicted of. See State ex rel. Rose v. McGinty, 128 Ohio St.3d 371, 2011-Ohio-761, 944 N.E.2d 672, ¶ 3; State ex rel. Davis v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 127 Ohio St.3d 29, 2010-Ohio-4728, 936 N.E.2d 41, ¶ 2.

*526Roy Duncan, pro se.

James J. Mayer Jr., Richland County Prosecuting Attorney, and Jill M. Cochran, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent.

{¶ 3} The December 8, 2009 sentencing entry for Duncan fully complies with Crim.R. 32(C) and R.C. 2505.02 because it states that he was convicted by a jury of specified crimes, it sets forth the sentence, it is signed by the judge, and it was entered upon the journal by the clerk of court.1 Rose at ¶ 2.

{¶ 4} Therefore, Duncan is not entitled to the requested extraordinary relief in mandamus to compel Judge DeWeese to enter a new sentencing entry.

Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp, and McGee Brown, JJ., concur.

State ex rel. Duncan v. DeWeese
132 Ohio St. 3d 525

Case Details

Name
State ex rel. Duncan v. DeWeese
Decision Date
Aug 30, 2012
Citations

132 Ohio St. 3d 525

Jurisdiction
Ohio

References

Referencing

Nothing yet... Still searching!

Referenced By

Nothing yet... Still searching!