Case Title: State ex rel. Jaffal v. Calabrese

Citation: 2005-Ohio-2591

Docket Number: 20042103

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2005-06-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Jaffal v. Calabrese, 105 Ohio St.3d 440, 2005-Ohio-2591.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. JAFFAL, APPELLANT, v. CALABRESE, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Jaffal v. Calabrese, 
 105 Ohio St.3d 440, 2005-Ohio-2591.] 
Appellant had adequate legal remedy through ordinary course of law to review 
of alleged sentencing error — Court of appeals’ judgment denying writ 
of mandamus affirmed. 
(No. 2004-2103 — Submitted April 26, 2005 — Decided June 8, 2005.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County,  
No. 85408, 2004-Ohio-6616. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
On October 15, 2004, appellant, Ahmad A. Jaffal, filed a petition 
in the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County for a writ of mandamus to compel 
appellee, Judge Anthony Calabrese Jr. of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common 
Pleas,1 to vacate his criminal sentence and resentence him.  According to Jaffal, 
he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit aggravated murder and conspiracy to 
commit aggravated arson and, on August 28, 2002, was sentenced by Judge 
Calabrese to two concurrent prison terms of eight years.  Jaffal claimed that 
although Judge Calabrese had had jurisdiction over his criminal case and had 
sentenced him in accordance with R.C. 2929.14(A)(1) and (B), those sentencing 
statutes were unconstitutional based on Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000), 530 U.S. 
466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435, and Blakely v. Washington (2004), ___ 
U.S.___, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (which applies the rule expressed in 
Apprendi).  Judge Calabrese moved to dismiss the petition. 
                                                 
1.  Appellee’s merit brief in this appeal was due March 9, 2005, but none was filed. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶2} 
On December 6, 2004, the court of appeals granted Judge 
Calabrese’s motion and dismissed the petition. 
{¶3} 
This cause is now before the court upon Jaffal’s appeal as of right. 
{¶4} 
Jaffal asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his 
mandamus petition.  Upon consideration, we find that Jaffal’s assertion lacks 
merit. 
{¶5} 
“Mandamus will not issue if there is a plain and adequate remedy 
in the ordinary course of law.”  State ex rel. Ullmann v. Hayes, 103 Ohio St.3d 
405, 2004-Ohio-5469, 816 N.E.2d 245, ¶ 8.  Sentencing errors by a court that had 
proper jurisdiction cannot be remedied by extraordinary writ.  See, generally, 
Majoros v. Collins (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 442, 443, 596 N.E.2d 1038 (habeas 
corpus); Smith v. Warren (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 467, 468, 732 N.E.2d 992 
(prohibition); State ex rel. Corrigan v. Lawther (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 157, 158, 
529 N.E.2d 1377 (mandamus).  Jaffal has or had adequate remedies in the 
ordinary course of law, e.g., appeal and postconviction relief, for review of any 
alleged sentencing error.  See Smith v. Walker (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 431, 432, 
700 N.E.2d 592; Childers v. Wingard (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 427, 428, 700 N.E.2d 
588. 
{¶6} 
Moreover, as Jaffal conceded in his petition, Judge Calabrese was 
authorized by R.C. 2929.14 to impose the sentence that he did.  See State ex rel. 
Shimko v. McMonagle (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 426, 430-431, 751 N.E.2d 472 
(mandamus would not issue to challenge judgment because trial court judge did 
not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction when he had basic statutory 
jurisdiction). 
{¶7} 
Finally, “ ‘[c]onstitutional challenges to legislation are generally 
resolved in an action in a common pleas court rather than in an extraordinary writ 
action * * *.’ ”  State ex rel. Satow v. Gausse-Milliken, 98 Ohio St.3d 479, 2003-
Ohio-2074, 786 N.E.2d 1289, ¶ 18, quoting Rammage v. Saros, 97 Ohio St.3d 
January Term, 2005 
3 
430, 2002-Ohio-6669, 780 N.E.2d 278, ¶ 11.  Because Jaffal has or had adequate 
remedies in the ordinary course of law to raise his claims, we need not address 
constitutional issues concerning Blakely and Apprendi.  See State ex rel. Mason v. 
Griffin, 104 Ohio St.3d 279, 2004-Ohio-6384, 819 N.E.2d 644, ¶ 20 (courts 
decide constitutional issues only when absolutely necessary). 
{¶8} 
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of 
appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
 Ahmad A. Jaffal, pro se. 
______________________