State ex rel. Peterson v. Durkin (Slip Opinion), Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-2639
Linked as:
Summary
Appeal from dismissal of a petition for a writ of mandamus and procedendo No error in sentencing entry Judgment affirmed.
Summary
Appeal from dismissal of a petition for a writ of mandamus and procedendo No error in sentencing entry Judgment affirmed.
Text
Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Peterson v. Durkin, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-2639.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published. SLIP OPINION NO. 2011-OHIO-2639 THE STATE EX REL. PETERSON, APPELLANT, v. DURKIN, JUDGE, ET AL., APPELLEES. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Peterson v. Durkin, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-2639.] Appeal from dismissal of a petition for a writ of mandamus and procedendo – No error in sentencing entry – Judgment affirmed.
(No. 2011-0260 — Submitted May 25, 2011 — Decided June 7, 2011.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Mahoning County, No. 10 MA 155.
____________________
Per Curiam. {¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of appellant, Bobbie Peterson, for writs of mandamus and procedendo to compel appellees, Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas Judge John M. Durkin and the common pleas court, to enter a sentencing entry that complies with Crim.R. 32(C) and properly imposes postrelease control. Judge Durkin’s February 27, 2007 sentencing entry fully complied with Crim.R. 32(C) by
- 1 -
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO including his guilty plea, the sentence, the judge’s signature, and the time stamp indicating the entry upon the journal by the clerk of court. The entry also included sufficient language that postrelease control was part of his sentence so as to give appellant sufficient notice to raise any claimed errors on appeal rather than by extraordinary writ. See State ex rel. Pruitt v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 125 Ohio St.3d 402, 2010-Ohio-1808, 928 N.E.2d 722, ¶ 4; Watkins v. Collins, 111 Ohio St.3d 425, 2006-Ohio-5082, 857 N.E.2d 78, ¶ 51-53. Judgment affirmed. O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur.
____________________
Bobbie Peterson, pro se. Paul J. Gains, Mahoning County Prosecuting Attorney, and Ralph M. Rivera, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees.
____________________
2
- 2 -
Sponsored links
