Case Title: State ex rel. Bradford v. Dinkelacker

Citation: 2016-Ohio-2916

Docket Number: 2015-1031

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2016-05-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. Bradford v. Dinkelacker, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-2916.] 
 
 
 
 
 
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. 2016-OHIO-2916 
THE STATE EX REL. BRADFORD, APPELLANT, v. DINKELACKER, JUDGE, 
APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Bradford v. Dinkelacker, Slip Opinion  
No. 2016-Ohio-2916.] 
Mandamus—Relator had adequate remedy in ordinary course of law to correct 
judgment entry of his conviction—Court of appeals’ dismissal of mandamus 
action affirmed. 
(No. 2015-1031—Submitted February 23, 2016—Decided May 12, 2016.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-1500237. 
_____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Relator, Pele K. Bradford, filed this action in mandamus in the First 
District Court of Appeals to correct the judgment entry of his conviction for 
aggravated murder. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
{¶ 2} Bradford was convicted of aggravated murder in 2004.  The jury 
found him guilty “of Aggravated Murder 2903.01(B) as charged in Count I of the 
Indictment.”  However, the court’s journal entry stated “[a]ggravated Murder with 
Specifications #1 and #2, 2903-01A/ORCN, SF.” 
{¶ 3} In January 2015, Bradford filed a motion in the Hamilton County 
Court of Common Pleas to correct the judgment entry.  Respondent, Judge Patrick 
T. Dinkelacker, denied the motion.  Bradford then filed an action in mandamus in 
the First District Court of Appeals.  Judge Dinkelacker filed a motion to dismiss 
the mandamus action, arguing that Bradford failed to meet the requirements under 
R.C. 2953.23 for a late petition for postconviction relief and that his motion to 
correct the judgment entry was barred by res judicata. 
{¶ 4} The court of appeals granted Judge Dinkelacker’s motion to dismiss.  
Bradford appealed. 
{¶ 5} To be entitled to extraordinary relief in mandamus, Bradford must 
establish a clear legal right to the requested relief, a clear legal duty on the part of 
Judge Dinkelacker 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. 
{¶ 6} Appeal is generally considered an adequate remedy sufficient to 
preclude a writ of mandamus.  Shoop v. State, 144 Ohio St.3d 374, 2015-Ohio-
2068, 43 N.E.3d 432, ¶ 8, citing State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm., 11 Ohio 
St.2d 141, 228 N.E.2d 631 (1967), paragraph three of the syllabus.  Bradford could 
have raised the mistake in the original journal entry as part of his direct appeal of 
his conviction.  He also could have appealed Judge Dinkelacker’s entry denying his 
motion to correct the judgment entry.  He therefore had an adequate remedy in the 
ordinary course of the law. 
Judgment affirmed 
January Term, 2016 
 
3
and motions for reversal of judgment, to file citation to relevant authority, and to 
take judicial notice of controlling authority denied as moot. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, and FRENCH, JJ., 
concur. 
O’DONNELL and O’NEILL, JJ., dissent. 
_________________ 
 
Pele K. Bradford, pro se. 
_________________