{¶ 1} William Fears appeals the First District Court of Appeals’ dismissal of his complaint for a writ of mandamus. Fears sought a writ compelling the trial court to grant him a new sentencing hearing. For the following reasons, the court of appeals properly dismissed Fears’s complaint, and we affirm.

{¶ 2} Fears had adequate remedies at law by appeal or postconviction relief to review his claimed sentencing error. State ex rel. Sampson v. Parrott, 82 Ohio St.3d 92, 93, 694 N.E.2d 463 (1998), citing State ex rel. Massie v. Rogers, 77 Ohio St.3d 449, 450, 674 N.E.2d 1383 (1997). Moreover, the fact that Fears has already invoked some of these alternate remedies to raise his claim of sentencing error does not entitle him to extraordinary relief in mandamus. Id. at 93, citing State ex rel. Tran v. McGrath, 78 Ohio St.3d 45, 47, 676 N.E.2d 108 (1997).

{¶ 3} Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Judgment affirmed.