Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Warren v. Boggins

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 1, 1999No. 99-1353PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. A writ of mandamus will not be issued when there is a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. R.C. 2731.05; State ex rel. Natl. Electrical Contractors Assn. v. Ohio Bur. of Emp. Serv. (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 179, 183, 699 N.E.2d 64, 67.

As the court of appeals correctly held, Warren has an adequate remedy by appeal from any judgment denying his postsentence motion to withdraw his plea in order to raise his claim that Judge Boggins erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing. See, e.g., State v. Hamed (1989), 63 Ohio App.3d 5,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. HamedOhio Court of Appeals · 1989
  2. State v. LegreeOhio Court of Appeals · 1988
  3. State ex rel. National Electrical Contractors Ass'n v. Ohio Bureau of Employment ServicesOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Gause v. ZaleskiOhio Supreme Court · 1999

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Hummel v. SadlerOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  2. State ex rel. Hummel v. SadlerOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  3. State ex rel. Wilke v. Hamilton County Board of CommissionersOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  4. State ex rel. Wilke v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Commrs.Ohio Supreme Court · 2000
  5. State ex rel. Warren v. BogginsOhio Supreme Court · 1999

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

Powered by the Exa API