From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State, ex Rel. Freeman, v. Court of Common Pleas

Supreme Court of Ohio
Sep 24, 1970
24 Ohio St. 2d 31 (Ohio 1970)

Opinion

No. 70-354

Decided September 24, 1970.

Postconviction Remedy Act — Mandamus to compel court to hold hearings — Petition dismissed — Mandamus not available to control judicial discretion.

IN MANDAMUS.

ON MOTION to dismiss.

Mr. Jerome Blair Freeman, in propria persona. Mr. Melvin G. Rueger, prosecuting attorney, and Mr. Leonard Kirschner, for respondent.


By this action in mandamus, relator seeks to compel respondent, Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County, to hold hearings on his petitions, filed under the Postconviction Remedy Act, to vacate sentences imposed upon him. The petitions were dismissed by the trial court, without an oral hearing. However, the court made findings of fact and conclusions of law. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss relator's petition.

Respondent's motion to dismiss is sustained for the reason that mandamus does not lie to control judicial discretion, and for the further reason that relator has an adequate legal remedy by way of appeal from the trial court's decision dismissing the petitions.

Petition dismissed.

O'NEILL, C.J., LEACH, SCHNEIDER, HERBERT, DUNCAN, CORRIGAN and STERN, JJ., concur.

LEACH, J., of the Tenth Appellate District, sitting for MATTHIAS, J.


Summaries of

State, ex Rel. Freeman, v. Court of Common Pleas

Supreme Court of Ohio
Sep 24, 1970
24 Ohio St. 2d 31 (Ohio 1970)
Case details for

State, ex Rel. Freeman, v. Court of Common Pleas

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE, EX REL. FREEMAN, v. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF HAMILTON COUNTY

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Sep 24, 1970

Citations

24 Ohio St. 2d 31 (Ohio 1970)
262 N.E.2d 880

Citing Cases

State, ex Rel. Shearer, v. Wertz

It is the decision of this court that although respondent's action in the instant case was rather uncommon,…

State Ex Rel. McElroy v. O'Donnell

However, mandamus may not be used to compel a court to hold a hearing because a writ of mandamus may not be…