State ex rel. Lockhart v. Whitney
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Lockhart v. Whitney, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-4896.] 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-4896 THE STATE EX REL. LOCKHART, APPELLANT, v. WHITNEY, JUDGE, APPELLEE. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Lockhart v. Whitney, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-4896.] Writs sought to compel issuance of new sentencing entry Sentencing entry complied with Crim.R. 32(C) Court of appeals judgment dismissing petition for writs of mandamus and procedendo affirmed. (No. 2011-0822 Submitted September 21, 2011 Decided September 28, 2011.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Delaware County, No. 10 CAD 12 0094, 2011-Ohio-2023. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of appellant, John C. Lockhart Jr., for writs of mandamus and procedendo. Lockhart seeks the writs to compel appellee, Delaware County Court of Common Pleas Judge W. Duncan Whitney, to issue a sentencing entry in SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Lockhart s criminal case that complies with Crim.R. 32. Lockhart challenges the propriety of Judge Whitney s December 2009 nunc pro tunc sentencing entry. {¶ 2} Lockhart s claims for extraordinary relief lack merit because the sentencing entry fully complied with Crim.R. 32(C) by including the findings of the jury upon which his convictions are based, the sentence, the signature of the judge, and the time stamp indicating journalization by the clerk of court. See State ex rel. Cunningham v. Lindeman, 126 Ohio St.3d 481, 2010-Ohio-4388, 935 N.E.2d 393, ¶ 1. Neither procedendo nor mandamus will compel the performance of a duty that has already been performed. State ex rel. Kreps v. Christiansen (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 313, 318, 725 N.E.2d 663; State ex rel. Rose v. McGinty, 123 Ohio St.3d 86, 2009-Ohio-4050, 914 N.E.2d 366, ¶ 2. {¶ 3} Therefore, the court of appeals correctly dismissed Lockhart s petition, and we affirm that judgment. Judgment affirmed. O CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O DONNELL, LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. __________________ John C. Lockhart Jr., pro se. Carol Hamilton O Brien, Delaware County Prosecuting Attorney, and Aric I. Hochstettler, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. ______________________ 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.
