State ex rel. Sampson v. Parrott, 97-2556
| Decision Date | 10 June 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-2556,97-2556 |
| Citation | 694 N.E.2d 463,82 Ohio St.3d 92 |
| Parties | The STATE ex rel. SAMPSON, Appellant, v. PARROTT, Judge, Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
John Lee Sampson, pro se.
R. Larry Schneider, Union County Prosecuting Attorney, and John C. Heinkel, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Sampson asserts that the court of appeals abused its discretion by dismissing his complaint. For the following reasons, however, the court of appeals properly dismissed Sampson's complaint for a writ of mandamus.
First, Sampson had adequate remedies at law by appeal or postconviction relief to review the claimed sentencing error. State ex rel. Massie v. Rogers (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 449, 450, 674 N.E.2d 1383. Second, the fact that Sampson has already invoked some of these alternate remedies to raise his claim of sentencing error does not entitle him to extraordinary relief in mandamus. Where a plain and adequate remedy at law has been unsuccessfully invoked, a writ of mandamus will not lie to relitigate the same issue. State ex rel. Tran v. McGrath (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 45, 47, 676 N.E.2d 108, 109. Finally, to the extent that Sampson's complaint could be construed as a request for immediate release from prison, habeas corpus, rather than mandamus, is the proper action. State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio Parole Bd. (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 140, 684 N.E.2d 1227.
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Anton I. Billings v. Carolyn B. Friedland, Judge, Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, Case, 99-LW-4090
... ... from prison, mandamus will not lie. State ex rel. Sampson ... v. Parrott (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 92, 93, 694 N.E.2d 463, ... 463-464 ... ...
-
Singfield v. Larose
...to relitigate the same issue." Childers v. Wingard, 83 Ohio St.3d 427, 428, 700 N.E.2d 588 (1998), citing State ex rel. Sampson v. Parrott, 82 Ohio St.3d 92, 93, 694 N.E.2d 463 (1998).Third, even if he could overcome the procedural and jurisdictional problems with habeas here, his arguments......
-
State ex rel. Beaver v. Konteh, 98-1285
...relief, to raise some of these same issues does not entitle him to extraordinary relief. See State ex rel. Sampson v. Parrott (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 92, 93, 694 N.E.2d 463. Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of Judgment affirmed. MOYER, C.J., and DOUGLAS, RESNICK, FR......
-
State ex rel. Phelps v. McClelland, 108021
...State ex rel. McKinney v. Schmenk, 152 Ohio St.3d 70, 2017-Ohio-9183, 92 N.E.3d 9183, ¶ 13, quoting State ex rel. Sampson v. Parrott, 82 Ohio St.3d 92, 93, 694 N.E.2d 463 (1998). Similarly, res judicata bars relitigation of a second suit based upon the same cause of action between the same ......