State ex rel. Olmstead v. Forsthoefel (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 4951

In April 2017 Olmstead was indicted on six counts including aggravated possession/trafficking and possessing criminal tools; he was convicted on all counts.
The trial court imposed an aggregate 61-month prison term, including consecutive terms of 9 months (Count 4) and 30 months (Count 5).
On direct appeal Olmstead challenged merger of Count 6 with Counts 4 and 5; the Fifth District rejected the allied-offense merger claim.
Olmstead filed an App.R. 26(B) application to reopen his appeal (alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel); it was denied on a technical defect. He also filed a motion to modify sentence (denied on the merits) and a motion alleging plain error (denied as procedurally improper).
Olmstead then petitioned for a writ of mandamus in the court of appeals seeking vacatur of his sentence, merger of Counts 4 and 5, and resentencing; the court dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim because an adequate remedy at law existed (direct appeal).
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding mandamus was not available to remedy the claimed sentencing/merger error given the adequate appellate remedies.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mandamus may be used to correct the trial court’s alleged failure to merge allied offenses	Olmstead: mandamus should compel vacatur, merger, and resentencing because merger error occurred	Judge/State: mandamus unavailable because an adequate remedy exists by direct appeal (and related appellate procedures)	Mandamus unavailable; merger dispute is a sentencing error remedied by appeal
Whether Olmstead lacks an adequate remedy because he already pursued appeals and relief failed	Olmstead: prior unsuccessful attempts mean no ordinary remedy remains	State: prior invocation of appellate remedies does not create a new entitlement to mandamus; relitigation barred	Unsuccessful prior use of ordinary remedies does not make mandamus appropriate
Whether ineffective appellate counsel (and a procedurally deficient 26(B) filing) deprived Olmstead of an adequate remedy	Olmstead: counsel’s errors left him without an effective appellate remedy	State: App.R. 26(B) to reopen and other appellate avenues remain adequate even if dismissed for procedural defects	Ineffective-appellate-counsel claim does not justify mandamus; App.R. 26(B) is the proper remedy

State ex rel. Natl. Elec. Contrs. Assn., Ohio Conference v. Ohio Bur. of Emp. Servs., 83 Ohio St.3d 179 (1998) (standard for dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6)).
State ex rel. Brown v. Nusbaum, 152 Ohio St.3d 284 (2017) (Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal reviewed de novo).
State ex rel. Love v. O'Donnell, 150 Ohio St.3d 378 (2017) (elements required to obtain a writ of mandamus).
State ex rel. Ridenour v. O'Connell, 147 Ohio St.3d 351 (2016) (mandamus generally will not lie to correct sentencing errors).
State ex rel. Sands v. Culotta, 158 Ohio St.3d 1 (2019) (failure to merge allied offenses is a sentencing error subject to appellate remedy).
State ex rel. Sampson v. Parrott, 82 Ohio St.3d 92 (1998) (mandamus will not relitigate an issue for which a plain and adequate remedy was unsuccessfully invoked).
State ex rel. Russell v. Klatt, 159 Ohio St.3d 257 (2020) (App.R. 26(B) is the proper remedy for ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claims).
Jackson v. Johnson, 135 Ohio St.3d 364 (2013) (availability of appeal is an adequate remedy even if dismissed for procedural failure).