State ex rel. Culgan v. Common Pleas Court (Kimbler)

Annotate this Case

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of Appellant for writs of mandamus and procedendo to compel Appellees, the court of common pleas judge and the common pleas court, to issue a valid, final judgment in one of his criminal cases and to vacate his sentence in another of his criminal cases. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant's sentencing entries constituted final, appealable orders; (2) the sentences Appellant challenged complied with Ohio R. Crim. P. 32(C) by specifying that Appellant was convicted upon his no-contest pleas; and (3) insofar as Appellant argued that one of his sentences was erroneous because there was no authorization for consecutive six-month jail sentences, Appellant had an adequate remedy by appeal to raise his claim of sentencing error.

Download PDF

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Culgan v. Kimbler, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-3310.] 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. 2012-OHIO-3310 THE STATE EX REL. CULGAN, APPELLANT, v. KIMBLER, JUDGE, ET AL., APPELLEES. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Culgan v. Kimbler, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-3310.] Criminal procedure Crim.R. 32 Judgment entry of conviction Writs of procedendo and mandamus denied. (No. 2012-0465 Submitted July 11, 2012 Decided July 24, 2012.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Medina County, No. 11CA0059-M. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of appellant, Clifford J. Culgan, for writs of mandamus and procedendo to compel appellees, Medina County Court of Common Pleas Judge James Kimbler and the common pleas court, to issue a valid, final judgment in one of his criminal cases and to vacate his sentence in another of his criminal cases. Neither mandamus nor procedendo will lie to compel an act that has already SUPREME COURT OF OHIO been performed. State ex rel. Lester v. Pepple, 130 Ohio St.3d 353, 2011-Ohio5756, 958 N.E.2d 566. Culgan s sentencing entries constitute final, appealable orders because they each set forth his convictions, the sentence, the judge s signature, and the time stamp indicating the entry upon the journal by the clerk. State ex rel. Jones v. Ansted, 131 Ohio St.3d 125, 2012-Ohio-109, 961 N.E.2d 192, ¶ 2; State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303, 2011-Ohio-5204, 958 N.E.2d 142, paragraph one of the syllabus. And the court of appeals did not violate his right to due process and the ex post facto provisions of the United States and Ohio Constitutions. The sentences that Culgan challenges complied with Crim.R. 32(C) by specifying that he was convicted upon his no-contest pleas. Id. at ¶ 1516, citing State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197, 2008-Ohio-3330, 893 N.E.2d 163. Finally, insofar as Culgan argues that one of his sentences is erroneous because there is no authorization for consecutive six-month jail sentences, he had an adequate remedy by appeal to raise his claim of sentencing error. State ex rel. Hudson v. Sutula, 131 Ohio St.3d 177, 2012-Ohio-554, 962 N.E.2d 798. Judgment affirmed. O CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O DONNELL, LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. __________________ Clifford J. Culgan, pro se. Dean Holman, Medina County Prosecuting Attorney, and Matthew Kern, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees. ______________________ 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.