Title: State ex rel. May v. Cissell

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO                               
     The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of                      
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,                      
1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice                   
Thomas J. Moyer.                                                                 
     Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's                   
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio.  Attention:  Walter S.                      
Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative                         
Assistant.  Tel.:  (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.                       
Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.                            
     NOTE:  Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the                  
full texts of the opinions after they have been released                         
electronically to the public.  The reader is therefore advised                   
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West                       
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.                     
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume                    
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound                   
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.                                            
                                                                                 
The State ex rel. May, Appellant, v. Cissell, Clerk, et al.,                     
Appellees.                                                                       
[Cite as State ex rel. May v. Cissell (1995),       Ohio                         
St.3d        .]                                                                  
Mandamus to compel correction of trial court records -- Writ                     
     denied when adequate remedy in the ordinary cause of law                    
     via App.R. 9(E) exists.                                                     
     (Nos. 95-546 and 95-547 -- Submitted June 21, 1995 --                       
Decided August 9, 1995.)                                                         
     Appeals from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County,                      
Nos. C-940988 and C-941043.                                                      
                                                                                 
     Morris May, pro se.                                                         
     Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney,                     
and Christian J. Schaefer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for                   
appellees.                                                                       
                                                                                 
     The judgments of the court of appeals dismissing the                        
complaints for writs of mandamus are affirmed on the basis that                  
appellant possesses an adequate remedy in the ordinary course                    
of law to correct the trial court records via App.R. 9(E).  See                  
State ex rel. Howard v. Ferreri (1995), 70 Ohio St.3d 587, 592,                  
639 N.E.2d 89, 1194-1195, and cases cited therein.                               
     Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney,                        
Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.