Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Tucker v. Forchione

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 28, 2010No. 2010-0479PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Per curiam

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition for a writ of mandamus of appellant, Eric Tucker. Tucker “had an adequate remedy by way of direct appeal from his sentence to raise his claim that he did not receive proper notification about postrelease control at his sentencing hearing.” Briseno v. Cook, 121 Ohio St.3d 38, 2009-Ohio-308, 901 N.E.2d 798, ¶ 1; Patterson v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 120 Ohio St.3d 311, 2008-Ohio-6147, 898 N.E.2d 950, ¶ 8. And Tucker’s February 1, 1999 sentencing entry “sufficiently included language that postrelease control was part of…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Watkins v. CollinsOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  2. State Ex Rel. Pruitt v. Cuyahoga County Court of Common PleasOhio Supreme Court · 2010
  3. Patterson v. Ohio Adult Parole AuthorityOhio Supreme Court · 2008
  4. Briseno v. CookOhio Supreme Court · 2009

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Castro v. CorriganOhio Supreme Court · 2011
  2. State ex rel. Castro v. CorriganOhio Supreme Court · 2011
  3. State ex rel. Gregley v. FriedmanOhio Court of Appeals · 2011
  4. State ex rel. Richardson v. SusterOhio Supreme Court · 2011
  5. State ex rel. Gray v. McDonnellOhio Court of Appeals · 2013

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