Case Title: State ex rel. Johnson v. Bettman

Citation: 1998-Ohio-309

Docket Number: 19981379

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1998-12-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
THE STATE EX REL. JOHNSON, APPELLANT, v. BETTMAN, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Johnson v. Bettman (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 61.] 
Mandamus to compel common pleas court judge either to abrogate or redetermine 
relator’s sentence, since he had completed his minimum prison term — 
Complaint dismissed, when. 
(No. 98-1379 — Submitted September 28, 1998 — Decided December 2, 1998.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-980457. 
 
In May 1998, appellant, Michael L. Johnson, filed a complaint in the Court 
of Appeals for Hamilton County for a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, 
Hamilton County Common Pleas Court Judge Gilbert Bettman, either to abrogate 
or redetermine Johnson’s sentence because he had completed his minimum prison 
term.  After Judge Bettman filed a motion to dismiss, the court of appeals granted 
the motion and dismissed Johnson’s complaint. 
 
This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. 
__________________ 
 
Michael L. Johnson, pro se. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Johnson asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing 
his complaint because former R.C. 5145.01 and 5145.02 required Judge Bettman 
to abrogate or redetermine his sentence following completion of his minimum 
term.  For the following reasons, however, Johnson’s assertions lack merit. 
 
First, neither former R.C. 5145.01 nor 5145.02 imposed any duty on Judge 
Bettman to redetermine Johnson’s sentence after he had allegedly completed his 
minimum prison term.  See State ex rel. Lanham v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. 
(1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 425, 427, 687 N.E.2d 283, 284-285. 
 
2
 
Second, Johnson did not allege his entitlement to the requested 
extraordinary relief with sufficient particularity to withstand dismissal.  State ex 
rel. Fain v. Summit Cty. Adult Probation Dept. (1995), 71 Ohio St.3d 658, 659, 
646 N.E.2d 1113, 1114. 
 
Finally, to the extent that Johnson claims that he is entitled to release from 
prison, habeas corpus, rather than mandamus, is the proper action.  State ex rel. 
Sampson v. Parrott (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 92, 694 N.E.2d 463. 
 
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.