Ohio Supreme Court, 2000

State ex rel. Billings v. Friedland

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided March 22, 2000 · Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney

88 Ohio St. 3d 237; 724 N.E.2d 1151

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

In re J.S. (Ohio 2013)
State Ex Rel. Stovall v. Jones, Unpublished Decision (10-12-2000) (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)
State ex rel. Parker v. Russo (Slip Opinions) (Ohio 2019)
State ex rel. Waver v. Gallagher (Ohio 2005)
State Ex Rel. Waver v. Gallagher, Unpublished Decision (8-18-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
State v. Scott, Unpublished Decision (12-7-2000) (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)
State ex rel. Billings v. Friedland (Ohio 2000)

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.

Billings asserts that the court of appeals erred in denying the requested extraordinary relief in mandamus. For the following three reasons, we find that Billings’s claims lack merit and affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

First, any failure to comply with R.C. 2945.05 may be remedied only in a direct appeal from a criminal conviction and not by extraordinary writ. Jackson v. Rose (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 51, 679 N.E.2d 684, 685; State v. Pless (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 333, 658 N.E.2d 766, paragraph two of the syllabus.

Second, if a plain and adequate remedy at law has been unsuccessfully invoked, a writ of mandamus will not issue to relitigate the same issue. State ex rel. Sampson v. Parrott (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 92, 93, 694 N.E.2d 463, 463-464. Billings cannot relitigate the same R.C. 2945.05 claim he raised in his direct appeal in a subsequent mandamus action.

Finally, as the court of appeals correctly held, because Billings essentially requests release from prison, mandamus is not the appropriate remedy. State ex rel. Larkins v. Aurelius (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 112, 113, 702 N.E.2d 79, 79-80.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

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.