Ohio Supreme Court, 1996

State ex rel. Hester v. Crush

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided June 5, 1996 · Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright

75 Ohio St. 3d 563; 664 N.E.2d 930

Cases that cite this one

18 later published cases cite this decision.

State Ex Rel. Amon v. Bernard (Ohio Ct. App. 2009)
State v. Martin, 07 Ca 843 (6-1-2007) (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
Jackson v. Franklin Cty. Ct. of Com. Pleas, Unpublished Decision (4-6-2006) (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)
State ex rel. Marshall v. Glavas (Ohio 2003)
State ex rel. Hunter v. Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas (Ohio 2000)
State ex rel. Hunter v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas (Ohio 2000)
State v. Nelson, Unpublished Decision (2-11-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
State v. Court of Common Pleas, Unpublished Decision (7-8-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
State Ex Rel. Hall v. Watkins (Ohio Ct. App. 1998)
Gaskins v. Shiplevy (Ohio 1996)
Gaskins v. Shiplevy (Ohio 1996)
State ex rel. Powell v. Sheehan (Ohio Ct. App. 2026)
In re J.D. (Ohio Ct. App. 2019)
Turner v. Lucci (Ohio Ct. App. 2015)
Turner v. Coulson (Ohio Ct. App. 2015)
Turner v. Lucci (Ohio Ct. App. 2015)
State v. Adult Parole Authority, Unpublished Decision (10-12-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
State v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority, Unpublished Decision (12-2-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

The General Assembly has said that “[t]he writ of mandamus must not be issued when there is plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.” R.C. 2731.05. We also have emphasized that mandamus is not available when the relator has a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Casey Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 429, 575 N.E.2d 181; State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm. (1967), 11 Ohio St.2d 141, 40 O.O.2d 141, 228 N.E.2d 631, paragraph three of the syllabus.

In State ex rel. Hill v. Niehaus (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 507, 628 N.E.2d 1376, we recognized that neither mandamus nor prohibition is available to criminal defendants to complain about the trial records in their cases because appeal is an adequate remedy. Even though the time for ordinary appeal has expired, a criminal defendant such as Hester can file a motion for leave to appeal his criminal conviction in the court of appeals. See App.R. 5. During a pending appeal from the trial court the criminal defendant may seek modification or correction of the trial court record. See App.R. 1(A), 9(E). Additionally, a criminal defendant who claims that there was such a denial of his constitutional rights as to render his conviction void can petition a common pleas court to vacate or set aside his sentence pursuant to R.C. 2953.21.

Accordingly, we conclude that the relator had an adequate remedy at law and that the court of appeals did not abuse its discretion in dismissing relator’s complaint. State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm., supra, at paragraph ten of the syllabus.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur. Wright, J., not participating.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.