[Cite as State ex rel. Wright v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 2011-Ohio-2159.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 96397
STATE OF OHIO, EX REL.
WESLEY WRIGHT
RELATOR
vs.
CUYAHOGA COUNTY COURT OF
COMMON PLEAS, ET AL.
RESPONDENTS
JUDGMENT:
WRIT DENIED
Writ of Mandamus/Procedendo
Motion No. 442577
Order No. 443758
RELEASE DATE: May 3, 2011
2
FOR RELATOR
Wesley Wright, pro se
Inmate No. 563-038
Mansfield Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 788
Mansfield, Ohio 44901
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENTS
William D. Mason
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: James E. Moss
Assistant County Prosecutor
8th Floor Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J.:
{¶ 1} Relator, Wesley Wright, is the defendant in State v. Wright,
Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-498291, which has been
assigned to respondent judge. Wright contends that the July 19, 2010
resentencing entry (which was filed on July 21, 2010) is void because it does
not include “essential information such as Relator’s being notified of his right
to Appeal * * * .” Complaint, ¶6 (capitalization in original). Wright
3
requests that this court issue relief in mandamus and/or procedendo to
compel respondents to issue a “Lawful Sentence.” Complaint, ¶11
(capitalization in original).
{¶ 2} Respondents have filed a motion for summary judgment and
argue, inter alia, that Wright has not established that he has a clear legal
right to the relief requested. We agree. Wright does not provide this court
with any controlling legal authority requiring a sentencing court to state in
the sentencing entry that the trial court informed a criminal defendant of the
right to appeal. That is, Crim.R. 32(C) – specifying the content of a
judgment – does not require that the trial court memorialize the Crim.R.
32(B) notification of the right to appeal in the sentencing entry. Compare
State v. Hunter, Cuyahoga App. No. 92626, 2010-Ohio-657 (failure to inform
defendant during resentencing of right to appeal was error). For purposes of
this original action, however, this court need not determine whether the
respondents erred during Wright’s July 2010 resentencing. Rather, Hunter
demonstrates that Wright had an adequate remedy by way of appeal to
challenge the propriety of his resentencing.
{¶ 3} Relator’s complaint does not establish that he has a clear legal
right to a new sentencing entry or that respondents have a corresponding
duty. Likewise, he had an adequate remedy by way of appeal.
4
{¶ 4} Additionally, Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a) requires that a complaint in
an original action be verified and supported by an affidavit specifying the
details of the claims. Wright’s “Verification” states, in part, that “the claims,
statements, and allegations made [in the complaint] are true and correct to
the best of my knowledge, recollection, and belief.” It is well-established that
a relator’s conclusory statement in an affidavit does not comply with the
requirement of Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a) that an affidavit specify the details of
the claim. Failure to do so is a basis for denying relief. See, e.g., State ex
rel. Castro v. Corrigan, Cuyahoga App. No. 96488, 2011-Ohio-1701.
{¶ 5} Accordingly, respondents’ motion for summary judgment is
granted. Relator to pay costs. The clerk is directed to serve upon the
parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. Civ.R.
58(B).
Writ denied.
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J., P.J., and
JAMES J. SWEENEY, J., CONCUR