Case Title: State ex rel. Black v. Forchione

Citation: 2015-Ohio-4336

Docket Number: 2014-2053

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2015-10-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. Black v. Forchione, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-4336.] 
 
 
 
 
 
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. 2015-OHIO-4336 
THE STATE EX REL. BLACK, APPELLANT, v. FORCHIONE, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Black v. Forchione, Slip Opinion No.  
2015-Ohio-4336.] 
Mandamus—Adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law by way of appeal—
Judgment dismissing petition for writ affirmed. 
(No. 2014-2053—Submitted July 7, 2015—Decided October 22, 2015.) 
APPEAL from the Stark County Court of Appeals No. 2014CA00129,  
2014-Ohio-4560. 
_____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the court of appeals’ judgment dismissing a petition for a 
writ of mandamus. 
{¶ 2} Relator-appellant, Lawrence Black, was convicted of a sexually 
oriented offense.  See State v. Black, 5th Dist. Stark No. 1999CA00185, 2000 WL 
873819 (June 26, 2000) (affirming Black’s conviction and sentence).  He is 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
therefore a person required to notify the appropriate county sheriff’s office when 
he changes his residential address, and he was indicted for a failure to do so in 
violation of R.C. 2950.05(A).  Black filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the 
court of appeals asserting that respondent-appellee, Judge Frank G. Forchione, 
lacks jurisdiction over his criminal case for the failure to notify, apparently 
believing that only Judge Haas, the judge who presided over his original criminal 
case, has jurisdiction.  Black is apparently seeking a writ of mandamus ordering 
Judge Forchione to vacate his rulings in the case.  The court of appeals granted 
Judge Forchione’s motion to dismiss, and Black appealed. 
{¶ 3} To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, Black must establish a clear 
legal right to the requested relief, a clear legal duty on the part of Judge Forchione 
to provide it, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.  
State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55, 2012-Ohio-69, 960 N.E.2d 452, 
¶ 6. 
{¶ 4} “[A] claim of improper assignment of a judge can generally be 
adequately raised by way of appeal.”  State ex rel. Key v. Spicer, 91 Ohio St.3d 469, 
469, 746 N.E.2d 1119 (2001), citing State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagle, 6 Ohio 
St.3d 28, 30, 451 N.E.2d 225 (1983) (petitions for mandamus and prohibition 
cannot be used as substitutes for an appeal to contest alleged improper assignment 
of judge).  Here, Black’s only claim appears to be the alleged improper assignment 
of Judge Forchione to his criminal case instead of Judge Haas.  He therefore has an 
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law by way of appeal, and he is not 
entitled to a writ of mandamus. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
 
Lawrence Black, pro se. 
January Term, 2015 
 
3
John D. Ferrero, Stark County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kathleen O. 
Tatarsky, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
_________________