Case Title: State ex rel. Nickleson v. Mayberry

Citation: 2012-Ohio-1300

Docket Number: 2011-1780

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2012-03-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Nickleson v. Mayberry, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-1300.] 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2012-OHIO-1300 
STATE EX REL. NICKLESON, APPELLANT, v. MAYBERRY, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as State ex rel. Nickleson v. Mayberry,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-1300.] 
Court of appeals’ judgment dismissing complaint for writ of mandamus affirmed. 
(No. 2011-1780—Submitted March 21, 2012—Decided March 29, 2012.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Wood County, 
No. WD-11-039, 2011-Ohio-4494. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the court of appeals’ judgment dismissing the complaint 
of appellant, Roland Nickleson, for a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, 
Wood County Court of Common Pleas Judge Alan Mayberry, to issue a final, 
appealable order in his criminal case.  Notwithstanding Nickleson’s claims, his 
sentencing entry was a final, appealable order because it contained a full 
resolution of all the counts of his indictment for which there were convictions.  
State ex rel. Davis v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 127 Ohio St.3d 29, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
2010-Ohio-4728, 936 N.E.2d 41, ¶ 2; State ex rel. Rose v. McGinty, 128 Ohio 
St.3d 371, 2011-Ohio-761, 944 N.E.2d 672, ¶ 2-3. 
{¶ 2} Moreover, Nickleson has or had an adequate remedy by appeal 
from his sentencing entry to raise his other claims contesting the validity of the 
indictment, the propriety of the jury instructions, and the sufficiency of the 
evidence supporting his convictions.  State ex rel. Simpson v. Cooper, 120 Ohio 
St.3d 297, 2008-Ohio-6110, 898 N.E.2d 936, ¶ 6 (mandamus petitioner had 
adequate remedy at law by direct appeal to raise his challenge to the validity or 
sufficiency of his indictment); Smith v. Mitchell, 80 Ohio St.3d 624, 625, 687 
N.E.2d 749 (1998) (habeas corpus petitioner had adequate remedy at law by direct 
appeal to raise his claim of erroneous jury instructions); Webber v. Kelly, 120 
Ohio St.3d 440, 2008-Ohio-6695, 900 N.E.2d 175, ¶ 7-9 (habeas corpus petitioner 
had adequate remedy at law by direct appeal to raise his claim concerning the 
sufficiency of the evidence); State ex rel. Voleck v. Powhatan Point, 127 Ohio 
St.3d 299, 2010-Ohio-5679, 939 N.E.2d 819, ¶ 7 (“Mandamus will not issue 
when the relators have an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law”); R.C. 
2731.05. 
{¶ 3} Finally, we deny appellant’s S.Ct.Prac.R. 6.7(B) request to accept 
his statement of facts and issues as correct and reverse the judgment, because his 
brief does not reasonably appear to sustain reversal. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Roland Nickleson, pro se. 
______________________