Case Title: State ex rel. Shepherd v. Astrab

Citation: 2011-Ohio-5789

Docket Number: 2011-1232

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2011-11-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Shepherd v. Astrab, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-5789.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2011-OHIO-5789 
THE STATE EX REL. SHEPHERD, APPELLANT, v. ASTRAB, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Shepherd v. Astrab,  
Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-5789.] 
Criminal procedure—Judgment entry of conviction sufficient to give notice of 
postrelease control—Writ to compel resentencing denied. 
(No. 2011-1232—Submitted November 2, 2011—Decided November 15, 2011.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 96511,  
2011-Ohio-2938. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the request 
of appellant, Charles Shepherd, for writs of mandamus and procedendo to compel 
a Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas judge to resentence him and to 
journalize a final, appealable order. 
{¶ 2} Shepherd “had an adequate remedy by way of direct appeal from 
his sentence to raise his claim that he did not receive proper notification about 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
postrelease control at his sentencing hearing.”  Briseno v. Cook, 121 Ohio St.3d 
38, 2009-Ohio-308, 901 N.E.2d 798, ¶ 1.  In addition, Shepherd’s sentencing 
entry “sufficiently included language that postrelease control was part of his 
sentence so as to afford him sufficient notice to raise any claimed errors on appeal 
rather than by extraordinary writ.”  State ex rel. Pruitt v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of 
Common Pleas, 125 Ohio St.3d 402, 2010-Ohio-1808, 928 N.E.2d 722, ¶ 4.  
Shepherd’s sentencing entry “constituted a final, appealable order, and he had an 
adequate remedy by way of appeal to raise his claims.”  State ex rel. Castro v. 
Corrigan, 129 Ohio St.3d 342, 2011-Ohio-4059, 952 N.E.2d 497, ¶ 3. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Charles Shepherd, pro se. 
______________________