State ex rel. Cotton v. Russo

May 19, 2010

2010-0108

Versions:125 Ohio St.3d 449

2010-Ohio-2111

Appeal from dismissal of a petition for a writ of mandamus or procedendo — Adequate remedy at law — No error in sentencing entry — Judgment affirmed.

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the claim of appellant, Milton Cotton, for a writ of mandamus or procedendo to compel appellee, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Judge John Russo, to issue a new sentencing entry in Cotton’s criminal case to comply with Crim.R. 32(C). Cotton’s sentencing entry fully complied with Crim.R. 32(C), as specified in State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197, 2008-Ohio-3330, 893 N.E.2d 163, syllabus. See also State ex rel. Agosto v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 119 Ohio St.3d 366, 2008-Ohio-4607, 894 N.E.2d 314, ¶ 10. And insofar as Cotton attempted to raise claims of sentencing error, he had an adequate remedy by appeal to raise them. Smith v. Smith, 123 Ohio St.3d 145, 2009-Ohio-4691, 914 N.E.2d 1036, ¶ 1. Finally, neither res judicata nor the law of the case precluded the court of appeals’ denial of the writs.

Judgment affirmed.

BROWN, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur.

Milton Cotton, pro se.

William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and James E. Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.