State ex rel. Tate v. Calabrese

Ohio Supreme Court
State ex rel. Tate v. Calabrese, 2010 Ohio 1431 (Ohio 2010)
125 Ohio St. 3d 28; 925 N.E.2d 962
Moyer, Pfeifer, Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp

State ex rel. Tate v. Calabrese

Opinion

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of appellant, Eric Tate, for a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Judge Deena Calabrese, to correct his sentence. Tate has already unsuccessfully sought correction of the same sentence by raising a similar claim for writs of mandamus and prohibition. See State ex rel. Tate v. Callahan, Cuyahoga App. No. 85615, 2005-Ohio-1202, 2005 WL 628520. Res judicata thus bars Tate from instituting a successive writ action. State ex rel. Essig v. Blackwell, 103 Ohio St.3d 481, 2004-Ohio-5586, 817 N.E.2d 5, ¶ 30; State ex rel. Carroll v. Corrigan (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 331, 332, 744 N.E.2d 771.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., 1 and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.

Reference

Full Case Name
The State Ex Rel. Tate, Appellant, v. Calabrese, Judge, Appellee
Cited By
2 cases
Status
Published