State ex rel. Scheck v. Collier
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Scheck v. Collier, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-233.] 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-233 THE STATE EX REL. SCHECK, APPELLANT, v. COLLIER, JUDGE, APPELLEE. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Scheck v. Collier, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-233.] Mandamus Demand for new sentencing hearing to properly impose postrelease control Remedy is through ordinary course of law Judgment affirmed. (No. 2010-1569 Submitted January 19, 2011 Decided January 26, 2011.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Medina County, No. 09CA0081-M. _____________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of appellant, Michael Scheck, for a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, Medina County Court of Common Pleas Judge Christopher J. Collier, to conduct a new sentencing hearing and to thereafter issue a new sentencing entry that correct errors in the original sentencing entry, which Scheck claims did not comply with Crim.R. 32(C) and did not properly impose postrelease control. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO [T]he remedy for a failure to comply with Crim.R. 32(C) is a revised sentencing entry rather than a new hearing. State ex rel. Alicea v. Krichbaum, 126 Ohio St.3d 194, 2010-Ohio-3234, 931 N.E.2d 1079, ¶ 2. And any error regarding the failure to hold a sentencing hearing before issuing a nunc pro tunc entry imposing postrelease control could be remedied in the ordinary course of law by appeal. See 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 ( the erroneous inclusion of postrelease control in Davis s original sentencing entry constituted mere error for which he had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law by way of appeal ); 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 (sentencing entry containing language that postrelease control was part of sentence afforded sufficient notice to the defendant so that he could raise any claimed errors on appeal rather than by extraordinary writ).1 Judgment affirmed. O CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O DONNELL, LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. _____________________ Michael Scheck, pro se. Dean Holman, Medina County Prosecuting Attorney, and Russell A. Hopkins, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. _____________________ 1 We deny appellee s motion to strike Scheck s initial merit brief because the motion was rendered moot by the timely filing of Scheck s amended merit brief. 2
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.
