Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Billings v. Friedland

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 22, 2000No. 99-1823PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

Billings asserts that the court of appeals erred in denying the requested extraordinary relief in mandamus. For the following three reasons, we find that Billings’s claims lack merit and affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

First, any failure to comply with R.C. 2945.05 may be remedied only in a direct appeal from a criminal conviction and not by extraordinary writ. Jackson v. Rose (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 51, 679 N.E.2d 684, 685; State v. Pless (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 333, 658 N.E.2d 766, paragraph two of the syllabus.

Second, if a plain and adequate remedy at law has been unsuccessfully…

2Cases cited4 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
  4. State ex rel. Larkins v. AureliusOhio Supreme Court · 1998

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Parker v. Russo (Slip Opinions)Ohio Supreme Court · 2019
  2. State ex rel. Waver v. GallagherOhio Supreme Court · 2005
  3. In re J.S.Ohio Supreme Court · 2013
  4. In re J.S.Ohio Supreme Court · 2013
  5. State ex rel. Billings v. FriedlandOhio Supreme Court · 2000

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

Powered by the Exa API