State ex rel. DeAmiches v. Saffold
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State ex rel. DeAmiches v. Saffold, 2010-Ohio-4140.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 95032 STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. JAMES DeAMICHES RELATOR vs. JUDGE SHIRLEY STRICKLAND SAFFOLD RESPONDENT JUDGMENT: COMPLAINT DISMISSED Writ of Mandamus Order No. 436620 2 RELEASE DATE: August 27, 2010 FOR RELATOR James DeAmiches, pro se Inmate No.385-848 P.O. Box 57 Marion, Ohio 43301 ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT William D. Mason Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: James E. Moss Assistant County Prosecutor 8th Floor Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 CHRISTINE T. McMONAGLE, J.: {¶ 1} On April 27, 2010, the relator, James DeAmiches, commenced this mandamus action against the respondent, Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold, to compel the judge to vacate previous sentencing entries in the underlying case, State v. James DeAmiches, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Case No. CR-380999, and to impose a sentence consistent with this court s decision in State v. James DeAmiches, Cuyahoga (Mar. 1, 2001), App. No. 77609.1 1 On May 26, In the underlying case, DeAmiches pled guilty to multiple counts of rape, gross sexual imposition, and illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material. On January 19, 2000, the respondent judge sentenced DeAmiches to maximum, consecutive sentences on all offenses for a total of 46 to 54 years. Count 11 was for a pre-1996 charge for use 3 2010, this court issued an alternative writ of mandamus ordering the judge to vacate the order of March 8, 2005, reimposing the term of seven to 15 years for Count 11, and the February 25, 2008 order, imposing postrelease controls, to reinstate the sentence as imposed by this court and ordered by the respondent in the December 13, 2004 journal entry and to notify immediately the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction of the changes in the sentence or to show cause why she should not follow the orders of this court. {¶ 2} On May 27, 2010, the trial court issued the following journal entry: The court vacates the order of March 8, 2005 imposing the term of 7 to 15 years for count 11 and the February 25, 2008 order imposing PRC and reinstates the sentence as mandated by the court of appeals and previously journalized on 12/13/2004. Clerk ordered to send a copy of this order to: Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections. On June 7, 2010, the respondent judge, through of a minor in nudity-oriented material, and the judge sentenced him to a seven to 15 year term on that count. On appeal this court, pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G), reduced the sentences, including the sentence on Count 11 to two to ten years. This court also ruled that because the judge did not advise him of post-release controls as part of his sentence under R.C. 2967.28, such post-release controls are not part of his sentence. (Slip op. Pg. 25.) This court then directed the respondent judge to vacate her prior sentencing order and issue a journal entry consistent with the opinion. The respondent judge did not do this until December 13, 2004, after a Motion to comply with court of appeals journal entry and opinion had been filed on November 16, 2004. Nevertheless, on March 8, 2005, the respondent judge without explanation issued a journal entry which stated, inter alia: The sentence on count eleven (11) is to read This count is a pre-senate bill two and defendant is sentenced to seven (7) to fifteen (15) years. Then on February 20, 2008, the respondent judge amended the sentencing entry to add postrelease control. 4 the Cuyahgoa County Prosecutor, filed a Notice of compliance with court s alternative writ of mandamus. Since that time neither party has filed anything. {¶ 3} The requisites for mandamus are well established: (1) the relator must have a clear legal right to the requested relief, (2) the respondent must have a clear legal duty to perform the requested relief and (3) there must be no adequate remedy at law. State ex rel. Ney v. Niehaus (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 118, 515 N.E.2d 914. In the present case the May 27, 2010 journal entry fully provided the relator with all of his requested relief. Accordingly, this mandamus action is moot, and this court, sua sponte, dismisses this action. Respondent to pay cost. This court directs the clerk to serve upon the parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. Civ.R. 58(B). CHRISTINE T. McMONAGLE, JUDGE SEAN C. GALLAGHER, A.J., and LARRY A. JONES, J., CONCUR
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
