State ex rel. Shepherd v. Gall

2026 Ohio 2690 · Supreme Court of Ohio · July 16, 2026 · No. 2025-1647

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the dismissal of a mandamus petition filed by DaJohn Shepherd, who sought to compel Judge Steven Gall to correct a 2018 sentencing entry to include notification of appellate rights. The court held that Crim.R. 32(B) does not require such notification in the entry itself, and that Shepherd had an adequate remedy by direct appeal. Thus, the petition was obviously without merit.

Court
Supreme Court of Ohio
Writing for the Court
Per Curiam; Kennedy, C.J.; Fischer; DeWine; Brunner; Deters; Hawkins; Shanahan
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
July 16, 2026
Docket number
2025-1647
Procedural posture
Appeal from the Eighth District Court of Appeals' sua sponte dismissal of a mandamus petition.
Standard of review
The court reviews whether the mandamus claim is frivolous or obviously without merit, applying the standard for sua sponte dismissal.
Precedential value
Published
Parties
DaJohn Shepherd v. Judge Steven Gall
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

criminal procedurepost-conviction reliefappellate procedureremedies

Practice areas

Criminal ProcedurePost-Conviction ReliefMandamus

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Eighth District erred in sua sponte dismissing Shepherd's mandamus petition because he failed to state a viable claim for a writ of mandamus.

Holdings

  1. Shepherd's mandamus claim was obviously without merit because he failed to establish a clear legal right to a corrected sentencing entry or a clear legal duty on Judge Gall's part to provide one, and he had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law by direct appeal.

Key quotations

To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, Shepherd must establish (1) a clear legal right to the requested relief, (2) a clear legal duty on the part of Judge Gall to provide it, and (3) the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. (¶ 6)
Crim.R. 32(B) requires only that the trial court 'advise the defendant of the defendant's right, where applicable, to appeal or to seek leave to appeal the sentence imposed.' (¶ 8)
An appeal is generally considered an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law sufficient to preclude a writ. (¶ 9)
To constitute a final, appealable order, an entry must set forth '(1) the fact of the conviction, (2) the sentence, (3) the judge's signature, and (4) the time stamp indicating the entry upon the journal by the clerk.' (¶ 9)

Factual background

Shepherd pleaded guilty to multiple felony charges in June 2018 and was sentenced to an aggregate term of 12 years in prison. The sentencing entry did not include a notification of appellate rights. Shepherd later moved to revise the entry, but Judge Gall denied the motion. Shepherd then filed a mandamus action to compel Judge Gall to correct the entry to include the notice.

Procedural history

Shepherd filed a mandamus petition in the Eighth District Court of Appeals seeking to compel Judge Gall to correct a 2018 sentencing entry that omitted notice of appellate rights. The Eighth District sua sponte dismissed the petition, concluding that Shepherd could not establish a clear legal duty or lack of an adequate remedy. Shepherd appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…