Case ID: ohio-st-3d_80/html/0296-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[The State ex rel.] Norris, Appellant, v. Boggins, Judge, Appellee.
    [Cite as State ex rel. Norris v. Boggins (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 296.]
    (No. 97-223
    Submitted October 7, 1997
    Decided November 19, 1997.)
    
      Robert Lee Norris, pro se.
    
   Per Curiam.

Norris asserts that the court of appeals erred by denying the writ. Norris’s claim, however, is meritless for the following reasons.

First, habeas corpus, rather than mandamus, is the appropriate action for persons claiming entitlement to immediate release from prison. State ex rel. Lemmon v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 186, 188, 677 N.E.2d 347, 349. Second, Norris has or had adequate legal remedies by an appeal or petition for postconviction relief to challenge any sentencing error. State ex rel Massie v. Rogers (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 449, 450, 674 N.E.2d 1383, 1383.

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.