State ex rel. Grinnell v. Reece
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Grinnell v. Reece, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-733.] 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. 2013-OHIO-733 THE STATE EX REL. GRINNELL, APPELLANT, v. REECE, JUDGE, APPELLEE. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Grinnell v. Reece, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-733.] Criminal procedure Crim.R. 32 Judgment entry of conviction Writs of procedendo and mandamus denied. (No. 2012-1720 Submitted February 27, 2013 Decided March 5, 2013.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 12AP-207. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the complaint of appellant, Timothy Grinnell, for writs of mandamus and procedendo to compel appellee, Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Judge Guy L. Reece II, to resentence him by issuing a judgment of conviction and sentence that complies with Crim.R. 32(C). {¶ 2} Neither mandamus nor procedendo will lie to compel an act that has already been performed. State ex rel. Lester v. Pepple, 130 Ohio St.3d 353, SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 2011-Ohio-5756, 958 N.E.2d 566, ¶ 1. Grinnell s sentencing entry constitutes a final, appealable order because it 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. Culgan v. Kimbler, 132 Ohio St.3d 480, 2012-Ohio-3310, 974 N.E.2d 88, ¶ 1. Grinnell claims that the sentencing entry does not comply with Crim.R. 32(C), because it fails to specify whether he was convicted of specifications that he had been charged with. But there is no evidence that he was convicted on the specifications, and Crim.R. 32(C) requires a resolution of only those charges for which there were convictions. See State ex rel. Rose v. McGinty, 128 Ohio St.3d 371, 2011-Ohio-761, 944 N.E.2d 672, ¶ 3. {¶ 3} Moreover, Grinnell s discussion regarding the entry not being time-stamped is factually inaccurate. While the time-stamp on the copy of the entry attached to Grinnell s petition is hard to see, the darker copy appended to Judge Reece s brief clearly shows that the entry was stamped and certified by the clerk. {¶ 4} Therefore, the court of appeals properly dismissed Grinnell s claims for extraordinary relief in mandamus and procedendo. Judgment affirmed. O CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, FRENCH, and O NEILL, JJ., concur. __________________ Timothy Grinnell, pro se. Ron O Brien, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and A. Paul Theis, 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.
