State ex rel. Turpin v. Court of Common Pleas of Stark County, 40233
| Decision Date | 05 October 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 40233,40233 |
| Citation | 8 Ohio St.2d 1,220 N.E.2d 670,37 O.O.2d 40 |
| Parties | , 37 O.O.2d 40 The STATE, ex rel. TURPIN, Appellant, v. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF STARK COUNTY, Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
This is an appeal as of right from a judgment of the Court of Appeals denying appellant a writ of mandamus. Appellant instituted his action in the Court of Appeals, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Court of Common Pleas of Stark Cojnty to rule on his petition filed under the Postconviction Remedy Act. The Court of Appeals denied the writ.
William F. Turpin, in pro. per.
Norman J. Putman, Pros. Atty., for appellee.
Appellant filed his petition under the Postconviction Remedy Act in September 1965. On spite of appellant's requests, the court has failed to rule on such petition. The petition has now been pending for some 12 months. As was pointed out in State, exrel. Victoratos v. Thomas, 175 Ohio St. 220, 193 N.E.2d 83, although judicial discretion cannot be controlled by mandamus, the writ may issue to compel the exercise of such discretion.
In view of the nature of the Postconviction Remedy Act, the purpose of which is to correct the denial of constitutional rights of an accused, and the prejudice which would result to the accused by delay if his grounds for relief were well taken, it would appear that prompt action on such petitions should be taken by the court. The delay in the instant case in acting on the petition is excessive.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is, therefore, reversed, and the writ of mandamus is allowed.
Judgment reversed and writ allowed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Penland v. Dinkelacker
...judgment in an action for post-conviction relief." (Emphasis added.) Id. at 3, 469 N.E.2d 843, citing State ex rel. Turpin v. Court of Common Pleas , 8 Ohio St.2d 1, 220 N.E.2d 670 (1966). This language suggests that the court issued the writ so that the relator could take an appeal.{¶ 13} ......
-
State v. Flowers
...a post-conviction relief proceeding which reaches errors only of a constitutional nature. R.C. § 2953.21; State ex rel. Turpin v. Court of Common Pleas, 8 Ohio St.2d 1, 220 N.E.2d 670. In my view, the omission here of an essential allegation of the offense is of constitutional dimension. Fo......
-
State ex rel. Rodak v. Betleski, ___ Ohio St.3d ___ (OH 12/15/2004)
... ... Case No. 2004-1664 ... In the Supreme Court of Ohio ... Submitted November 16, 2004 ... Gary C. Bennett, Lorain County Prosecuting Attorney, and M. Robert Flanagan, for ... Rodak, Lorain County Court of Common Pleas case No. 99CR053789. On June 4, 1999, the ... State ex rel. Turpin v. Stark Cty. Court of Common Pleas ... (1966), 8 ... ...
-
State ex rel. McGrath v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 2007 Ohio 4442 (Ohio App. 8/27/2007), 89924.
...State ex rel. Levin v. Sheffield Lake (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 104, 1994-Ohio-385, 637 N.E.2d 319; State ex rel. Turpin v. Stark Cty. Court of Common Pleas (1966), 8 Ohio St.2d 1, 220 N.E.2d 670. Thus, we find that McGrath is not entitled to a writ of procedendo vis-a-vis the motions that are ......