State ex rel. Agosto v. Gallagher
2011 Ohio 4514
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Relator Jose Agosto, Jr. challenges the November 3, 2005 sentencing entry in CR-455889? (case cited as Agosto v. Gallagher) as void for multiple defects.
- The year-2005 sentencing entry purportedly did not dispose of count 1, involved allied offenses of similar import, and imposed postrelease control.
- Agosto previously sought mandamus/procedendo relief in Case No. 90631, which this court denied and which the Supreme Court affirmed as not entitling relief and as having an adequate remedy by appeal.
- The Supreme Court held that Agosto was barred by res judicata from pursuing extraordinary relief given prior determinations and that appeal was available and adequate.
- The trial court’s sentencing entry was deemed to include postrelease-control language and thus not a void sentencing entry, and the petition for mandamus/procedendo was properly denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars this action | Agosto seeks mandamus/procedendo relief for a void sentence | Court previously denied similar relief and Supreme Court affirmed | Yes, res judicata bars relief |
| Whether the absence of the state's nolle in the sentencing entry is defect | Relator claims missing nolle renders entry defective | Trial court not required to state means of exoneration | No defect warranting mandamus/procedendo |
| Whether the sentence on allied offenses was improper | Argues improper sentencing on allied offenses | Allied offense issues are non-jurisdictional and appealable | Not a basis for mandamus/procedendo relief |
| Whether postrelease control notice warrants relief | Postrelease-control imposition improperly noticed | Notice language sufficed; remedy via appeal available | Relief denied; adequate remedy by appeal exists |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197 (2008) (mandamus relief limited; proper appellate remedies exist)
- State ex rel. Smith v. Fuerst, 2005-Ohio-3829 (Ohio App.) (adequate remedy by appeal; mandamus not proper for mere errors)
- State ex rel. Charvat v. Frye, 114 Ohio St.3d 76 (2007) (mandamus requires clear legal right and duty; no remedy at law present)
- State v. Robinson, 2008-Ohio-5580 (Ohio App.) (trial court not required to state means of exoneration in sentencing entry)
- Shepherd v. Astrab, 2011-Ohio-2938 (Ohio App.) (postrelease-control language provides notice; appeal is adequate remedy)