State ex rel. Hopson v. Court of Common Pleas
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 complaint for a writ of mandamus and/or procedendo seeking to compel Appellee, the county court of common pleas, to issue a sentencing opinion in his criminal case that complied with a statute requiring a court or panel of three judges to state in a separate opinion certain findings when imposing a sentence of life imprisonment in a capital case. The court of appeals denied relief because Appellant's complaint failed to comply with Loc. App. R. 45(B)(1)(a) and because Appellee already issued the sentencing order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant's document did not satisfy Rule 45(B)(1)(a), and the court of appeals was justified in denying relief on that ground alone; and (2) the court of appeals correctly reasoned that relief was unwarranted because mandamus and procedendo will not compel performance of a duty that has already been performed.
Download PDF
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Hopson v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio1911.] 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-1911 THE STATE EX REL. HOPSON, APPELLANT, v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, APPELLEE. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Hopson v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-1911.] Criminal procedure R.C. 2929.03(F) sentencing opinion Local rule requiring complaint to contain specific statements of fact and to be supported by an affidavit specifying the details of the claim to commence an original action Mandamus and procedendo will not compel the performance of a duty that has already been performed Appellate court s denial of relief affirmed. (No. 2012-2161 Submitted May 8, 2013 Decided May 15, 2013.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 99053, 2012-Ohio-5701. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying relief to appellant, Jeffrey Hopson, on his complaint for a writ of mandamus and/or SUPREME COURT OF OHIO procedendo. Hopson seeks to compel appellee, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, to issue a sentencing opinion in his criminal case that complies with R.C. 2929.03(F). That statute requires a court or a panel of three judges to state in a separate opinion certain findings when imposing a sentence of life imprisonment in a capital case. The Eighth District, on motion for summary judgment by appellee, denied relief because Hopson s complaint failed to comply with Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a) and because appellee has already issued the sentencing order. {¶ 2} We have held that the Eighth District s reading of Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1) is reasonable and that it may dismiss a writ case that fails to comply with the requirement of an affidavit specifying the details of the claim. State ex rel. Leon v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 123 Ohio St.3d 124, 2009-Ohio4688, 914 N.E.2d 402, ¶ 1; see State ex rel. Boccuzzi v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 112 Ohio St.3d 438, 2007-Ohio-323, 860 N.E.2d 749, ¶ 19. Here, Hopson s complaint was not accompanied by an affidavit specifying the details of the claim. {¶ 3} Hopson claims that his complaint is in the form of an affidavit and that this should satisfy the rule. However, the rule is specific that the complaint must contain the specific statements of fact and that it must be supported by an affidavit specifying the details of the claim. Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a). The Eighth District reasonably interprets its rule to require a complaint and a separate affidavit, and Hopson s hybrid document does not satisfy the rule. The court below was justified in denying relief on that ground alone. See Leon at ¶ 1. {¶ 4} Moreover, the court below correctly reasoned that relief is unwarranted because mandamus and procedendo will not compel the performance of a duty that has already been performed. State ex rel. Fontanella v. Kontos, 117 Ohio St.3d 514, 2008-Ohio-1431, 885 N.E.2d 220, ¶ 6, citing State ex rel. Howard v. Doneghy, 102 Ohio St.3d 355, 2004-Ohio-3207, 810 N.E.2d 958, ¶ 6. 2 January Term, 2013 A copy of the R.C. 2929.03(F) entry, issued on June 20, 1997, was attached to the appellee s motion for summary judgment below, and now appears on the docket of Hopson s criminal case. {¶ 5} Hopson argues in his reply brief that the entry had not been journalized, as required by law to be a final appealable order. However, he appears to be confusing journalization documented by the judge s signature and the stamp of the clerk of court with appearance on the docket. The entry apparently did not appear on the electronic docket until recently, but that does not mean that it had not been journalized. See State ex rel. White v. Junkin, 80 Ohio St.3d 335, 337, 686 N.E.2d 267 (1997) ( Dockets and journals are distinct records kept by clerks ). See also id., citing R.C. 2303.12 (the clerk of the court of common pleas shall keep at least four books : the appearance docket, trial docket, journal, and execution docket). {¶ 6} Relief in mandamus or procedendo is therefore inappropriate. {¶ 7} Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. Judgment affirmed. O CONNOR, C.J., and O DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, FRENCH, and O NEILL, JJ., concur. PFEIFER, J., concurs in judgment only. __________________ Jeffrey Hopson, pro se. Timothy J. McGinty, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and James E. Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. ______________________ 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.
