Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Larkins v. Aurelius

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 9, 1998No. 98-1300PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Per curiam

Larkins asserts that the court of appeals erred by denying the writ of mandamus to vacate his criminal convictions. For the following reasons, however, we find that Larkins’s claims are meritless and affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

As the court of appeals correctly held, the failure to comply with R.C. 2945.05 may be remedied only in a direct appeal from a criminal conviction. State v. Pless (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 333, 658 N.E.2d 766, paragraph two of the syllabus. A claimed violation of R.C. 2945.05 is not the proper subject for an extraordinary writ. See Jackson v. Rose (1997),…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. PlessOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  2. State ex rel. Sampson v. ParrottOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Jackson v. RoseOhio Supreme Court · 1997

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Washington v. Ohio Adult Parole AuthorityOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  2. State ex rel. Washington v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.Ohio Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Kelley v. WilsonOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  4. State ex rel. Billings v. FriedlandOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  5. State ex rel. Larkins v. AureliusOhio Supreme Court · 1998

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API