Summary
In Hudson, the Relator sought writs of mandamus and procedendo to compel the trial court to resentence him to "account for his allied offenses.
Summary of this case from State v. DeWeeseOpinion
No. 2011–1680.
2012-02-16
The STATE ex rel. HUDSON, Appellant, v. SUTULA, Judge, et al., Appellees.
William Hudson, pro se. William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and James E. Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
William Hudson, pro se. William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and James E. Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
[Ohio St.3d 177] {¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the complaint of appellant, William Hudson, for writs of mandamus and procedendo to compel appellees, Judge John D. Sutula and the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, to resentence him to account for his allied offenses of similar import. Neither mandamus nor procedendo will issue if the party seeking extraordinary relief has an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel. Jelinek v. Schneider, 127 Ohio St.3d 332, 2010-Ohio-5986, 939 N.E.2d 847, ¶ 13. Hudson had an adequate remedy by way of appeal to raise the claimed sentencing error. See generally Manns v. Gansheimer, 117 Ohio St.3d 251, 2008-Ohio-851, 883 N.E.2d 431, ¶ 6 (“sentencing errors are not jurisdictional and are not remediable * * * by extraordinary writ”); compare Smith v. Voorhies, 119 Ohio St.3d 345, 2008-Ohio-4479, 894 N.E.2d 44, ¶ 10 (“allied-offense claims are nonjurisdictional and are not cognizable in habeas corpus”). And Hudson's double-jeopardy claim [Ohio St.3d 178] was also remediable by appeal rather than by extraordinary writ. See State ex rel. Douglas v. Burlew, 106 Ohio St.3d 180, 2005-Ohio-4382, 833 N.E.2d 293, ¶ 15.
Judgment affirmed.