State ex rel. Bradford v. Dinkelacker
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Ohio?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Ohio. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Appellant filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling Appellee, a Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton county judge, to vacate his sentence as void and to resentencing him “according to the verdict returned by the jury.” The court of appeals dismissed Appellant’s petition for a writ of mandamus. Appellant appealed and also filed a motion for reversal of judgment under S. Ct. Prac. R. 16.07(B) claiming that he was entitled to judgment in his favor because the judge failed to file a brief in this appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed and denied Appellant’s motion, holding (1) the court of appeals correctly dismissed Appellant’s petition for a writ of mandamus; and (2) Appellant’s brief did not reasonably appear to sustain reversal.
Download PDF
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Bradford v. Dinkelacker, Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-1342.] 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. 2017-OHIO-1342 THE STATE EX REL. BRADFORD, APPELLANT, v. DINKELACKER, JUDGE, APPELLEE. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Bradford v. Dinkelacker, Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-1342.] Mandamus—Appellant had and has used adequate remedy in ordinary course of law—Court of appeals’ dismissal of petition affirmed. (No. 2016-0252—Submitted February 7, 2017—Decided April 13, 2017.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-150714. ________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the First District Court of Appeals dismissing the petition of appellant, Pele K. Bradford, for a writ of mandamus. {¶ 2} Bradford seeks an order compelling appellee, Judge Patrick T. Dinkelacker of the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County, to vacate his sentence as void and to resentence him “according to the verdict returned by the SUPREME COURT OF OHIO jury.” To obtain a writ of mandamus, Bradford must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that he has a clear legal right to the requested relief, that Judge Dinkelacker has a clear legal duty to provide it, and that Bradford lacks an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55, 2012-Ohio-69, 960 N.E.2d 452, ¶ 6, 13. {¶ 3} Bradford’s mandamus claim asserts an error in sentencing. A sentencing error “does not patently and unambiguously divest the court or its judges of jurisdiction to enter judgment.” State ex rel. Pruitt v. Donnelly, 129 Ohio St.3d 498, 2011-Ohio-4203, 954 N.E.2d 117, ¶ 2. “In the absence of a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction, a court having general subject-matter jurisdiction can determine its own jurisdiction, and a party contesting that jurisdiction has an adequate remedy by appeal.” State ex rel. Plant v. Cosgrove, 119 Ohio St.3d 264, 2008-Ohio-3838, 893 N.E.2d 485, ¶ 5. {¶ 4} In fact, in 2015, Bradford filed a “motion to correct the judgment entry pursuant to Criminal Rule 36,” arguing that the trial court had violated his constitutional right to a jury trial “when it effectively ‘amended’ the aggravatedmurder verdict form by entering judgment convicting him under division (A), rather than division (B)” of R.C. 2903.01. State v. Bradford, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C150207, 2 (May 18, 2016). The trial court denied his motion. On appeal, the First District affirmed and held that while the verdict form was subject to correction under Crim.R. 36, “the trial court, when it entered judgment convicting Bradford under division (A) of the aggravated-murder statute, effectively made that correction” and did not thereby abuse its discretion. Id., citing State v. Davie, 80 Ohio St.3d 311, 686 N.E.2d 245 (1997) (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in changing the wording in a verdict form after the jury was discharged when the change was not demonstrably prejudicial).1 1 We also note that the applicable sentences for a conviction under R.C. 2903.01 are the same whether the conviction is under division (A) or (B). R.C. 2903.01(F) and 2929.02(A). 2 January Term, 2017 {¶ 5} “An appeal is generally considered an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law sufficient to preclude a writ.” Shoop v. State, 144 Ohio St.3d 374, 2015-Ohio-2068, 43 N.E.3d 432, ¶ 8, citing State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm., 11 Ohio St.2d 141, 228 N.E.2d 631 (1967), paragraph three of the syllabus. Bradford had and has used an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law by way of his 2015 motion and his appeal of the denial of that motion. Therefore, the court of appeals correctly dismissed his petition for a writ of mandamus. {¶ 6} Bradford has also filed a motion for reversal of judgment under S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.07(B). Bradford contends that he is entitled to judgment in his favor because Judge Dinkelacker failed to file a brief in this appeal. However, under S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.07(B), we “may accept the appellant’s statement of facts and issues as correct and reverse the judgment if the appellant’s brief reasonably appears to sustain reversal.” (Emphasis added.) Bradford’s brief does not reasonably appear to sustain reversal, and we therefore deny his motion for reversal of judgment. Judgment affirmed and motion denied. O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. FISCHER and DEWINE, JJ., not participating. _________________ Pele K. Bradford, pro se. _________________ 3
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.
