Case Title: State ex rel. Franks v. Cosgrove

Citation: 2013-Ohio-402

Docket Number: 2012-1717

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2013-02-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Franks v. Cosgrove, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-402.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2013-OHIO-402 
THE STATE EX REL. FRANKS, APPELLANT, v. COSGROVE, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as State ex rel. Franks v. Cosgrove,  
Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-402.] 
Mandamus to compel credit for jail time in prison sentence—Remedy available in 
ordinary course of law—Writ denied. 
(No. 2012-1717—Submitted February 6, 2013—Decided February 14, 2013.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Summit County, No. 26448. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the motion 
of appellant, Nathaniel Franks, for a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, his 
trial court judge, to award him jail-time credit.  Franks’s claim for jail-time credit 
is remediable in the ordinary course of law by motion and appeal.  State ex rel. 
Williams v. McGinty, 129 Ohio St.3d 275, 2011-Ohio-2641, 951 N.E.2d 755, ¶ 2.  
In addition, res judicata barred Franks from filing a successive mandamus action 
seeking the same relief.  State ex rel. Carroll v. Corrigan, 91 Ohio St.3d 331, 744 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
N.E.2d 771 (2001).  Finally, insofar as Franks’s second mandamus claim was 
instituted by motion, “original actions for extraordinary relief like a writ of 
mandamus must be commenced by filing a complaint or a petition, not by filing a 
‘motion’ or an ‘application.’ ”  State ex rel. Bealler v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 91 
Ohio St.3d 36, 37, 740 N.E.2d 1100 (2001). 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Nathaniel Franks, pro se. 
 
Sherri Bevan Walsh, Summit County Prosecuting Attorney, and Corina 
Staehle Gaffney, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
______________________