State ex rel. Kendrick v. Parker

 Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary

The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal brought by Appellant challenging the court of appeals' denial of his motion to certify a conflict, holding that this Court lacked the authority to review of the court of appeals' decision.

Appellant was serving sentences for seven rape convictions when he filed a petition in the Second District Court of Appeals for a writ of prohibition and/or mandamus alleging that the trial judge in his case patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction to sentence him for one of the offenses. The Second District granted summary judgment for the judge. The Supreme Court affirmed. Appellant, in the meantime, filed a motion asking the Second District to certify that its judgment conflicts with other appellate decisions. The Second District denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, noting that the Court lacks the authority to review a court of appeals' decision declining to certify the existence of a conflict.

Download PDF
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Kendrick v. Parker, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-3081.] 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. 2020-OHIO-3081 THE STATE EX REL. KENDRICK, APPELLANT, v. PARKER, JUDGE, APPELLEE. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Kendrick v. Parker, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-3081.] Certification of conflicts—This court lacks authority to review court of appeals’ decision declining to certify conflict—Appeal dismissed. (No. 2019-1669—Submitted April 7, 2020—Decided May 28, 2020.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. 28098. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} Appellant, Shaun D. Kendrick Sr., appeals the judgment of the Second District Court of Appeals denying his motion to certify a conflict. Because we lack authority to review the Second District’s decision, we dismiss the appeal. {¶ 2} Kendrick is in prison serving sentences for seven rape convictions. In 2018, he filed a petition in the Second District for a writ of prohibition and/or mandamus, alleging that the trial judge in his criminal case patently and SUPREME COURT OF OHIO unambiguously lacked jurisdiction to sentence him for one of the offenses. The Second District granted summary judgment in the judge’s favor, and we affirmed. State ex rel. Kendrick v. Parker, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2020-Ohio-1509, __ N.E.3d __. {¶ 3} Meanwhile, Kendrick filed a motion asking the Second District to certify that its judgment conflicts with several other appellate decisions. Kendrick now appeals from the Second District’s denial of that motion. {¶ 4} We have long held that we will not review a court of appeals’ decision declining to certify the existence of a conflict. See State ex rel. Birdsall v. Stephenson, 68 Ohio St.3d 353, 356, 626 N.E.2d 946 (1994) (“we will not review a court of appeals’ denial of certification for the reason that no conflict exists”), citing State ex rel. Wolfe v. Richards, 127 Ohio St. 63, 187 N.E. 1 (1933) (“The question whether or not such conflict exists is not open to review by this court”). Because we lack authority to review the Second District’s decision declining to certify the existence of a conflict, we dismiss this appeal. Appeal dismissed. O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, and STEWART, JJ., concur. _________________ Shaun D. Kendrick Sr., pro se. Mathias H. Heck Jr., Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, and Anne M. Jagielski, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. _________________ 2
Primary Holding

The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal challenging the court of appeals' denial of Appellant's motion to certify a conflict, holding that this Court lacked the authority to review of the court of appeals' decision.


Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

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.