Title: State ex rel. Culgan v. Collier

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Culgan v. Collier, Slip Opinion No. 2012-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. 2012-Ohio-2916 
THE STATE EX REL. CULGAN, APPELLANT, v. COLLIER, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as State ex rel. Culgan v. Collier,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-2916.] 
Sentencing—Mandamus and procedendo unavailable to correct sentence—
Adequate remedy by way of appeal. 
(No. 2012-0511—Submitted June 20, 2012—Decided July 5, 2012.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Medina County, No. 11CA0097-M. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the 
complaint of appellant, Clifford J. Culgan, for writs of mandamus and procedendo 
to compel appellee, Medina County Court of Common Pleas Judge Christopher J. 
Collier, to correct his sex-offender classification to classify him as a sexually 
oriented offender instead of a sexual predator.  Insofar as Culgan sought to control 
Judge Collier’s exercise of judicial discretion, neither mandamus nor procedendo 
can be used to control that discretion, even if it is abused.  State ex rel. Fontanella 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
v. Kontos, 117 Ohio St.3d 514, 2008-Ohio-1431, 885 N.E.2d 220, ¶ 7.  Culgan 
had an adequate remedy by way of appeal from the judgment classifying him as a 
sexual predator to raise his claims of error.  See State ex rel. Hudson v. Sutula, 
131 Ohio St.3d 177, 2012-Ohio-554, 962 N.E.2d 798, ¶ 1 (“Neither mandamus 
nor procedendo will issue if the party seeking extraordinary relief has an adequate 
remedy in the ordinary course of law”); State v. Sparks, 9th Dist. No. 25320, 
2011-Ohio-3245, ¶ 8 (sex-offender classification constitutes final, appealable 
order even when the sentencing entry itself is not a final, appealable order for lack 
of compliance with Crim.R. 32(C)); State v. Gibson, 2d Dist. No. 2009 CA 47, 
2010-Ohio-3447, ¶ 25 (appeal from sex-offender classification is legally distinct 
from an appeal from the underlying sentence). 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Clifford J. Culgan, pro se. 
 
Dean Holman, Medina County Prosecuting Attorney, and Matthew Kern, 
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
______________________