State ex rel. Smith v. Yost
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the following reasons.
First, a writ of mandamus will not issue if there is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. R.C. 2731.05. As we held in a habeas corpus case instituted by Smith in which he raised the same claim of an improper jury verdict, extraordinary^ relief is unavailable because Smith could have raised this claim in a direct appeal from his conviction and sentence. Smith v. Seidner (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 172, 677 N.E.2d 336.
Second, Smith cannot use mandamus to relitigate the same issue he unsuccessfully raised in his…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- State ex rel. Tran v. McGrathOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- State ex rel. Lemmon v. Ohio Adult Parole AuthorityOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio Parole BoardOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- Smith v. SeidnerOhio Supreme Court · 1997
3Cited by7 opinions
- State ex rel. Zanders v. Ohio Parole BoardOhio Supreme Court · 1998
- State ex rel. Zanders v. Ohio Parole Bd.Ohio Supreme Court · 1998
- State ex rel. Jackson v. CallahanOhio Supreme Court · 1999
- State ex rel. Jackson v. CallahanOhio Supreme Court · 1999
- State Ex Rel. Sansom v. Wilkinson, Unpublished Decision (3-27-2002)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2002
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.