Case Title: State ex rel. Larkins v. Aurelius

Citation: 1998-Ohio-661

Docket Number: 19981300

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1998-12-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
THE STATE EX REL. LARKINS, APPELLANT, v. AURELIUS, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Larkins v. Aurelius (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Mandamus to compel common pleas court judge to vacate relator’s 1986 criminal 
convictions – Writ denied, when. 
(No. 98-1300 – Submitted October 12, 1998 – Decided December 9, 1998.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 74115. 
 
In 1986, following a bench trial in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common 
Pleas, appellant, Ronald Larkins, was convicted and sentenced for aggravated 
murder, aggravated robbery, and attempted murder.  The court of appeals affirmed 
the trial court’s judgment on appeal. 
 
In 1995, the court of appeals granted Larkins a writ of habeas corpus.  The 
court of appeals held that the trial court had failed to strictly comply with the jury 
trial waiver requirements of R.C. 2945.05 because there was no evidence that 
Larkins’s written waiver had ever been filed and made a part of the record in his 
criminal case. 
 
On appeal, we reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and held that 
Larkins was not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus.  State ex rel. Larkins v. Baker 
(1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 658, 653 N.E.2d 701. 
 
In 1998, Larkins filed a complaint in the court of appeals for a writ of 
mandamus to compel appellee, Larkins’s trial court judge, to vacate Larkins’s 
1986 convictions and sentence because of the trial court’s failure to comply with 
R.C. 2945.05.  The court of appeals subsequently granted appellee’s motion for 
summary judgment and denied the writ. 
 
This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. 
__________________ 
 
Ronald Larkins, pro se. 
 
2
 
Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Saleh 
S. Awadallah, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Larkins asserts that the court of appeals erred by denying the 
writ of mandamus to vacate his criminal convictions.  For the following reasons, 
however, we find that Larkins’s claims are meritless and affirm the judgment of 
the court of appeals. 
 
As the court of appeals correctly held, the failure to comply with R.C. 
2945.05 may be remedied only in a direct appeal from a criminal conviction.  State 
v. Pless (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 333, 658 N.E.2d 766, paragraph two of the syllabus.  
A claimed violation of R.C. 2945.05 is not the proper subject for an extraordinary 
writ.  See Jackson v. Rose (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 51, 679 N.E.2d 684, 685. 
 
In addition, because Larkins essentially requests release from prison, 
mandamus will not lie.  State ex rel. Sampson v. Parrott (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 92, 
93, 694 N.E.2d 463-464. 
 
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.