[Cite as State ex rel. Baker v. Stucki, 2015-Ohio-4952.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR HOLMES COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO EX REL., : JUDGES:
JESSE JAMES BAKER :
: Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, P.J.
Relator : Hon. John W. Wise, J.
: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
-vs- :
: CASE NO. 15CA003
JUDGE DAVID E. STUCKI :
HOLMES COUNTY COURT OF :
COMMON PLEAS :
: OPINION
Respondent :
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: COMPLAINT FOR WRIT OF
MANDAMUS/PROCEDENDO
JUDGMENT:
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: November 23, 2015
APPEARANCES:
For Appellant: For Appellee:
Jesse James Baker, Pro Se Sean M. Warner (#0075110)
P.O. Box 8107 Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
Mansfield, Ohio 44901 Steve Knowling (#0030974)
Prosecuting Attorney
164 E. Jackson Street
Millersburg, Ohio 44654
Holmes County, Case No. 15CA003 2
Delaney, J.
{¶1} Relator, Jesse James Baker has filed a Complaint for Writ of
Mandamus/Procedendo requesting this Court order Respondent to waive court
costs in Holmes County Case Number 15CA003. Respondent has filed an
answer requesting dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.
{¶2} To be entitled to the issuance of a writ of mandamus, the Relator
must demonstrate: (1) a clear legal right to the relief prayed for; (2) a clear legal
duty on the respondent's part to perform the act; and, (3) that there exists no
plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel. Master v.
Cleveland, 75 Ohio St.3d 23, 26-27, 1996 Ohio 228, 661 N.E.2d 180; State ex
rel. Harris v. Rhodes (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 41, 374 N.E.2d 641, citing State ex
rel.National City Bank v. Bd of Education (1977) 52 Ohio St.2d 81, 369 N.E.2d
1200.
{¶3} To be entitled to a writ of procedendo, “a relator must establish a
clear legal right to require the court to proceed, a clear legal duty on the part of
the court to proceed, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of law.” Miley, supra, at 65, citing State ex rel. Sherrills v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of
Common Pleas (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 461, 462. The Supreme Court has noted,
“The writ of procedendo is merely an order from a court of superior jurisdiction to
one of inferior jurisdiction to proceed to judgment. It does not in any case attempt
to control the inferior court as to what that judgment should be.” State ex rel.
Davey v. Owen, 133 Ohio St. 96,106, 12 N.E.2d 144, 149 (1937).
Holmes County, Case No. 15CA003 3
{¶4} Neither writ will issue where an adequate remedy at law exists.
{¶5} Relator was charged with a variety of drug offenses in Holmes County
Common Pleas Case Numbers 10CR103 and 11CR002. When Relator failed to
appear for sentencing in those cases, he was indicted on two counts of failure to
appear which was assigned Holmes County Case Number 11CR083. Relator
pled guilty to the failure to appear counts and subsequently appealed his
conviction and sentence from that case. We affirmed Relator's conviction and
sentence.
{¶6} It appears the first two cases were concluded after the failure to
appear case was resolved. As part of the resolution of the first two cases, the
state agreed to recommend waiving certain costs. Relator was required to
dismiss his appeal in the failure to appear case as part of the plea agreement.
{¶7} The instant complaint arises out of Relator’s belief that the plea
agreement called for the costs to be waived in all of his cases including the
failure to appear case. He has attached a partial transcript of the sentencing
hearing in Case Numbers 10CR103 and 11CR002 in support of his contention.
Respondent argues the state did not agree to recommend waiving costs in the
failure to appear case, and Relator misunderstands the terms of the agreement.
Further, Respondent argues Relator has or had an adequate remedy at law by
way of filing a motion with the trial court.
{¶8} The Supreme Court has held that an adequate remedy at law exists
for a person claiming a plea agreement was breached, “An adequate legal
remedy to rectify any alleged breach of plea agreement [exists] by filing a motion
Holmes County, Case No. 15CA003 4
with the sentencing court to either withdraw his previous guilty plea pursuant to
Crim.R. 32.1 or specifically enforce the agreement.” State ex rel. Seikbert v.
Wilkinson (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 489, 491, 633 N.E.2d 1128.
{¶9} Because the essence of Relator’s claim is that his plea agreement
was breached, an adequate remedy at law exists precluding the issuance of the
requested writs. The instant complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, Relator's Motion for Summary
Judgment is also denied.
Delaney, J.
By: Delaney, .J.
Farmer, P.J. and
Wise, J. concur
[Cite as State ex rel. Baker v. Stucki, 2015-Ohio-4952.]
State ex rel. Baker v. Stucki
Combined Opinion