State ex rel. Hamilton v. Brunner - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

[Cite as State ex rel. Hamilton v. Brunner, 105 Ohio St.3d 304, 2005-Ohio-1735.]

THE STATE EX REL. HAMILTON, APPELLANT, v. BRUNNER, JUDGE, APPELLEE.
[Cite as State ex rel. Hamilton v. Brunner,
105 Ohio St.3d 304, 2005-Ohio-1735.]
Mandamus to compel judge to rule on petition for postconviction relief and
motions -- Denied as moot after rulings made -- Adequate remedy in
ordinary course of law.
(No. 2004-1908 -- Submitted March 30, 2004 -- Decided April 27, 2005.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 02AP-1332.
__________________

Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} On February 26, 1993, appellant, Sidney S. Hamilton, was indicted
on several criminal charges. In August 1993, Hamilton entered a guilty plea to
attempted rape and gross sexual imposition and was sentenced to an aggregate
prison term of six to 15 years. Hamilton did not file a timely appeal of his
conviction and sentence. Hamilton filed various postjudgment motions as well as
a petition for postconviction relief. On October 29, 1997, Hamilton was
adjudicated to be a sexual predator.
{¶ 2} In November 2002, Hamilton filed a petition in the Court of
Appeals for Franklin County for a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, Franklin
County Common Pleas Court Judge Jennifer L. Brunner, to rule on his pending
postconviction motions and to correct his judgment entry to reflect that the
common pleas court never obtained jurisdiction over him. On July 23, 2003,
Judge Brunner denied Hamilton's petition for postconviction relief and pending
motions. On July 25, 2003, Judge Brunner moved to dismiss Hamilton's
mandamus petition. The court of appeals converted the dismissal motion to a
motion for summary judgment.

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
{¶ 3} On September 30, 2004, the court of appeals denied the writ.
{¶ 4} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
{¶ 5} Hamilton requested a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Brunner
to rule on his postconviction petition and motions. She did so on July 23, 2003. "
`Mandamus does not lie to compel an act that has already been performed.' "
State ex rel. Natl. City Bank v. Maloney, 103 Ohio St.3d 93, 2004-Ohio-4437, 814
N.E.2d 58, ¶ 10, quoting State ex rel. Jones v. O'Connor (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d
426, 704 N.E.2d 1223.
{¶ 6} Moreover, Hamilton's claim that his journal entry should be
corrected to reflect the fact that the trial court never obtained proper jurisdiction
over him because of an improper indictment and defective municipal court
proceedings is meritless. Mandamus will not issue if there is a plain and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel. Ullmann v. Hayes, 103 Ohio
St.3d 405, 2004-Ohio-5469, 816 N.E.2d 245, ¶ 8. Hamilton had an adequate
remedy by appeal to raise his claim that his indictment was invalid so as to
warrant correction of his sentencing entry. See State ex rel. Hadlock v. Corrigan
(1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 202, 580 N.E.2d 1089 (court affirmed dismissal of
mandamus action to compel trial court to vacate sentencing entry because
appellant had adequate legal remedies to claim that there was no valid charging
instrument). An indictment cannot be collaterally attacked following a judgment
of conviction. State ex rel. Wilcox v. Seidner (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 412, 415, 667
N.E.2d 1220. Nor are municipal court improprieties in a case in which the
petitioner is subsequently convicted and sentenced upon an indictment cognizable
in an extraordinary-writ action. See, e.g., Williamson v. Williams, 103 Ohio St.3d
25, 2004-Ohio-4111, 812 N.E.2d 1283, ¶ 2-3; Harris v. Bagley, 97 Ohio St.3d 98,
2002-Ohio-5369, 776 N.E.2d 490, ¶ 3.
{¶ 7} Further, Hamilton's claim that he has been denied his right to a
speedy trial is not cognizable in an extraordinary-writ proceeding; again, he had
2

January Term, 2005
an adequate remedy at law by way of appeal to raise this claim. See Jackson v.
Wilson, 100 Ohio St.3d 315, 2003-Ohio-6112, 798 N.E.2d 1086, ¶ 5; State ex rel.
Dix v. Angelotta (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 115, 18 OBR 146, 480 N.E.2d 407.
{¶ 8} Finally, we find no merit in Hamilton's assertion that alleged "bad
faith" by the state and denial of his right to due process of law prevent the state
from objecting to his appeal.
{¶ 9} Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of
appeals.
Judgment affirmed.

MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O'CONNOR,
O'DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur.
__________________

Sidney S. Hamilton, pro se.

Ron O'Brien, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Patrick J.
Piccininni, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
______________________
3