Summary
In State ex rel. Thomas v. DeWine, 127 Ohio St.3d 214, 2010-Ohio-4984, 938 N.E.2d 328, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled that an extraordinary writ would not lie to compel a resentencing in order to provide the defendant with oral notification at his sentencing of the mandatory five-year postrelease control term.
Summary of this case from State ex Rel. Jones v. FriedmanOpinion
No. 2010-1241.
Submitted October 13, 2010.
Decided October 19, 2010.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-100352.
Ako Thomas, pro se.
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment dismissing the petition of appellant, Ako Thomas, for a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Judge Patrick DeWine, to resentence him in order to provide him oral notification at his sentencing hearing of his mandatory five-year postrelease-control term. Thomas "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.
Judgment affirmed.
BROWN, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O'CONNOR, O'DONNELL, and CUPP, JJ., concur.
LANZINGER, J., concurs in judgment only.