State ex rel. Krouskoupf v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2022 Ohio 1310

Relator Harry H. Krouskoupf III was on post-release control from March 20, 2017 to March 17, 2020 and incurred new charges that led to criminal proceedings and prison time.
On March 13, 2018 the trial court accepted a guilty plea, sentenced him to 11 years with 564 days jail-time credit, and ordered remaining post-release-control time served in prison.
This court vacated that conviction on March 6, 2019 and remanded; on July 19, 2019 Krouskoupf entered a new guilty plea and was resentenced to an 11-year term (eight years mandatory).
The trial court’s journal entries were amended: an August 27, 2019 entry reduced jail-time credit to zero as of July 19, 2019; a September 9, 2019 entry later stated he was entitled to 70 days of credit as of March 12, 2018.
Krouskoupf filed motions for jail-time credit (May 13, 2020; March 15, 2021); both were denied and he did not timely appeal those denials.
On February 28, 2022 he filed a writ of mandamus against the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction, BOSCO, and the Adult Parole Authority (and Judge Fleegle) seeking restoration of 564 days jail-time credit, recalculation of his judicial-sanction time and adjusted release date; the motions to dismiss were granted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Krouskoupf is entitled to 564 days jail-time credit and adjusted release date	Krouskoupf contends the court should credit 564 days and recalculate his judicial-sanction time from the date of sentence imposition	Respondents argue the claim is barred by res judicata and that Krouskoupf had an adequate remedy by direct appeal	Denied — claim barred by res judicata and an adequate remedy at law (appeal) existed
Whether the September 9, 2019 amended judgment (70 days credit) is void because Krouskoupf was not present when it was issued	Krouskoupf says the amendment lowering credit occurred without his presence and so is contrary to law	Respondents say errors or irregularities in sentencing are subject to direct appeal and cannot be remedied by mandamus	Denied — absence at the alleged amendment is an appellate issue; mandamus is not a substitute for appeal
Whether mandamus is an appropriate extraordinary remedy here	Krouskoupf seeks mandamus because direct appeal is no longer available or he did not obtain relief below	Respondents assert mandamus is extraordinary, not available where ordinary appellate remedies exist or were not pursued	Denied — mandamus inappropriate; relator had (but failed to pursue) adequate appellate remedies and successive motions are barred by res judicata

State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagle, 6 Ohio St.3d 28 (mandamus elements and limits on controlling judicial discretion)
State ex rel. Taylor v. Glasser, 50 Ohio St.2d 165 (mandamus is an extraordinary remedy to be used cautiously)
State ex rel. Woodbury v. Spitler, 34 Ohio St.2d 134 (mandamus may not substitute for appeal to correct trial errors)
State ex rel. Pressley v. Industrial Commission, 11 Ohio St.2d 141 (relator must make a clear case before extraordinary relief issues)
State ex rel. Everhart v. McIntosh, 115 Ohio St.3d 195 (courts may take judicial notice of prior opinions and public records when deciding Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motions)
State v. Thompson, 147 Ohio St.3d 29 (trial court determination of jail-time credit is a final, appealable order)
State ex rel. Davies v. Schroeder, 160 Ohio St.3d 29 (availability of an appeal is an adequate remedy that bars mandamus)
State ex rel. White v. Woods, 156 Ohio St.3d 562 (same: appeal precludes mandamus even if not pursued)
Biliter v. Banks, 135 Ohio St.3d 426 (sentencing errors are properly raised via direct criminal appeal)
State ex rel. Gaydosh v. Twinsburg, 93 Ohio St.3d 576 (failure to pursue available remedies does not make mandamus appropriate)
State ex rel. Dawson v. Summit Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 146 Ohio St.3d 435 (res judicata bars mandamus if issues could have been raised on prior appeal)