State ex rel. White v. Suster

[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




    THE STATE EX REL. WHITE, APPELLANT, v. SUSTER, JUDGE, APPELLEE.
              [Cite as State ex rel. White v. Suster, 

.]
Mandamus sought to compel common pleas court judge to correct an entry of
        sentence in relator’s criminal case—Court of appeals’ denial of writ
        affirmed, when.
       (No. 2002-0045—Submitted April 9, 2002—Decided June 12, 2002.)
       APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 79986,
                                     

.
                                  __________________
        Per Curiam.
        {¶1} In 1996, appellant, Dewight White, was convicted of two counts of
burglary, two counts of theft, and one count of theft of less than $5,000, and was
sentenced to an aggregate prison term of three and one-half years to fifteen and one-half years. In December 2000, appellee, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court
Judge Ronald Suster, denied White’s motion to correct the entry of sentence.
        {¶2} In July 2001, White filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for
Cuyahoga County for a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Suster to correct his
journal entry “to reflect the fact that [his] sentencing was never scheduled for April
11, 1996, at 9:00 A.M. at Relator’s request, nor was Relator sentenced on March
28, 1996.”      White did not attach an affidavit required of inmates by R.C.
2969.25(A) describing each civil action or appeal of a civil action filed by the
inmate against governmental entities or employees in the previous five years in any
state or federal court, an R.C. 2969.25(C) certified statement of his prison cashier,
or an affidavit specifying the details of his claim, as required by Loc.App.R.
45(B)(1)(a). After Judge Suster filed an answer and a motion to dismiss or, in the
alternative, for summary judgment, the court of appeals denied the writ. The court
                               SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




of appeals denied the writ for three separate reasons:          (1) mandamus is not
appropriate to compel a judge to enter a specific judgment, (2) White did not
comply with Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a), and (3) White did not comply with the filing
requirements of R.C. 2969.25.
        {¶3} In his appeal of right, White challenges only the first of the three
reasons given by the court of appeals in denying the writ. Therefore, even assuming
that White’s contention on appeal is correct, he would still not be entitled to reversal
of the judgment. In other words, even if the court’s rationale on one of its grounds
was incorrect, its judgment denying the writ based on the two grounds that White
does not challenge on appeal was proper. State ex rel. Tenace v. Court of Claims
(2002), 

, 

; see, also, State ex rel. Sherrills
v. Franklin Cty. Clerk of Courts (2001), 

, 

,
affirming dismissal of mandamus claim for failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A)
and (C) filing requirements.
        {¶4} Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of
appeals.
                                                                   Judgment affirmed.
        MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
                                __________________
        Dewight White, pro se.
                                __________________




                                           2