[Cite as State ex rel. Davis v. Saffold, 2014-Ohio-1954.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 100990
STATE EX REL., ROBERT DAVIS
RELATOR
vs.
JUDGE SHIRLEY STRICKLAND SAFFOLD
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT:
WRIT DISMISSED
Writ of Mandamus
Motion No. 473062
Order No. 474086
RELEASE DATE: May 6, 2014
RELATOR
Robert Davis, pro se
No. A572-537
Grafton Reintegration Center
2500 S. Avon Belden Road
Grafton, Ohio 44044
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: James E. Moss
Assistant County Prosecutor
9th Floor, Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J.:
{¶1} On February 14, 2014, the relator, Robert Davis, commenced this
mandamus action to compel the respondent, Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold, to return
him to the trial court for execution of sentence in the underlying case, State v. Davis,
Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-08-509762-A. On March 12, 2014, the respondent judge moved
to dismiss. On March 21, 2014, Davis filed a brief in opposition to the respondent’s
motion. For the following reasons, this court grants the motion to dismiss and dismisses
the application for a writ of mandamus.
{¶2} In the underlying case on July 20, 2009, Davis plead guilty to burglary, and
the judge sentenced him to five years of community control sanctions and warned him
that violating community control could result in an eight-year prison sentence. On August
27, 2009, the judge found that Davis had violated community control and imposed the
eight-year sentence. On appeal, this court ruled that the trial court had not properly
revoked the community control sanctions and reversed and remanded for further
proceedings. State v. Davis, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 93959, 2010-Ohio-5126 (“Davis
I”).
{¶3} On July 26, 2011, the trial court ordered Davis’s original sentence into
execution, but did not explicitly say an eight-year prison sentence. The next day, the
trial judge issued a nunc pro tunc entry clarifying that as a result of Davis’s violation, he
is sentenced to eight years in prison. On appeal, Davis argued that the trial court
erroneously imposed an eight-year prison term, because the trial judge did not explicitly
state eight years. This court rejected the argument because it was clear that the judge
was imposing the same sentence it had imposed in August 2009. State v. Davis, 8th
Dist. Cuyahoga No. 97227, 2012-Ohio-2499 (“Davis II”).
{¶4} This court granted Davis a delayed appeal to contest the July 27, 2011 nunc
pro tunc order. Davis argued that the July 27, 2011 order was an improper use of nunc
pro tunc because the trial judge never imposed an eight-year prison sentence. This court
ruled that Davis’s argument was barred by res judicata; he could have and should have
raised this issue in Davis II. Furthermore, it was clear that the judge was properly
imposing an eight-year sentence. This court concluded with the standard language:
“It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to the Cuyahoga County Court of Common
Pleas to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant’s conviction having been
affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court for
execution.” State v Davis, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99376, 2013-Ohio-4905 (“Davis
III”).
{¶5} Davis seizes upon this standard language and now demands that he be
brought back to the trial court so that the sentence, can be executed. However, Davis is
already in prison serving the subject sentence, and the judgment has been carried into
execution. Returning him to the trial court for a pointless exercise would be elevating
form over substance.
{¶6} Moreover, in State ex rel. Davis v. Saffold, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100742,
2014-Ohio-307 (“Davis IV”), Davis raised this same issue that the trial court had to bring
him back to court for execution of sentence. This court denied the application for a writ
because the “appeal was not remanded to Judge Saffold for any further proceedings or for
entry of any additional judgments.” Id. at ¶3. Thus, the judge has no duty to bring
Davis back for execution of sentence, and mandamus will not lie.1
{¶7} Accordingly, this court grants the respondent’s motion to dismiss and
dismisses the application for a writ of mandamus. Relator to pay cost. This court
directs the clerk of court to serve all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry
upon the journal as required by Civ.R. 58(B).
{¶8} Writ dismissed.
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, JUDGE
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., P.J., and
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR
1
The requisites for mandamus are well established: (1) the relator must have a clear legal right
to the requested relief, (2) the respondent must have a clear legal duty to perform the requested relief,
and (3) there must be no adequate remedy at law. State ex rel. Ney v. Niehaus, 33 Ohio St.3d 118,
515 N.E.2d 914 (1987).
State ex rel. Davis v. Saffold
Combined Opinion