Opinion
No. 2011–0478.
2011-08-17
The STATE ex rel. PAIGE, Appellant,v.CORRIGAN, Judge, Appellee.
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 95864, 2011-Ohio-743, 2011 WL 553722.Arnold Paige, pro se.PER CURIAM.
[Ohio St.3d 449] {¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the request of appellant, Arnold Paige, for a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Judge Peter Corrigan, to vacate his sentence and resentence him. Paige “had an adequate remedy by way of direct appeal from his sentence to raise his claim that he did not receive proper notification about postrelease control at his sentencing hearing.” Briseno v. Cook, 121 Ohio St.3d 38, 2009-Ohio-308, 901 N.E.2d 798, ¶ 1; Patterson v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 120 Ohio St.3d 311, 2008-Ohio-6147, 898 N.E.2d 950, ¶ 8. Paige also had an adequate remedy by appeal to raise his claims that his March 2004 sentencing entry contained incorrect terms of postrelease control. State ex rel. Tucker v. Forchione, 128 Ohio St.3d 298, 2010-Ohio-6291, 943 N.E.2d 1006, ¶ 1; State ex rel. Pruitt v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 125 Ohio St.3d 402, 2010-Ohio-1808, 928 N.E.2d 722, ¶ 4. This disposition renders moot Judge Corrigan's motion to strike Paige's merit brief.
Judgment affirmed.
O'CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O'DONNELL, LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur.