Ohio Supreme Court, 1998

State ex rel. Smith v. Yost

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided February 18, 1998 · Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney

81 Ohio St. 3d 111; 689 N.E.2d 565

Cases that cite this one

14 later published cases cite this decision.

State Ex Rel. Sansom v. Wilkinson, Unpublished Decision (3-27-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
State v. Warden of County Jail, Unpublished Decision (6-19-2001) (Ohio Ct. App. 2001)
State Ex Rel. Daniels, Unpublished Decision (6-19-2001) (Ohio Ct. App. 2001)
State Ex Rel, Miller v. Griffin, Unpublished Decision (3-22-2001) (Ohio Ct. App. 2001)
State Ex Rel Nelson v. Mason, Unpublished Decision (11-22-2000) (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)
State Ex Rel. Drake v. Sutula, Unpublished Decision (4-29-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
State v. Sutula, Unpublished Decision (5-6-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
State v. Friedland, Unpublished Decision (9-16-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
State ex rel. Jackson v. Callahan (Ohio 1999)
State ex rel. Jackson v. Callahan (Ohio 1999)
State ex rel. Zanders v. Ohio Parole Board (Ohio 1998)
State ex rel. Zanders v. Ohio Parole Bd. (Ohio 1998)
State ex rel. Wynn v. McCormick (Ohio 1998)
State ex rel. Smith v. Yost (Ohio 1998)

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.

We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the following reasons.

First, a writ of mandamus will not issue if there is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. R.C. 2731.05. As we held in a habeas corpus case instituted by Smith in which he raised the same claim of an improper jury verdict, extraordinary^ relief is unavailable because Smith could have raised this claim in a direct appeal from his conviction and sentence. Smith v. Seidner (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 172, 677 N.E.2d 336.

Second, Smith cannot use mandamus to relitigate the same issue he unsuccessfully raised in his previous habeas corpus action. Cf. State ex rel. Tran v. McGrath (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 45, 47, 676 N.E.2d 108, 109.

Finally, mandamus is not the appropriate remedy for persons claiming entitlement to release from prison. That remedy is habeas corpus. State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio Parole Bd. (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 140, 684 N.E.2d 1227. “A contrary holding would permit inmates seeking immediate release from prison to employ mandamus to circumvent the statutory pleading requirements for instituting a habeas corpus action, i.e., attachment of commitment papers and verification.” State ex rel. Lemmon v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 186, 188, 677 N.E.2d 347, 349.

Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

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