Title: State ex rel. Smith v. Fuerst

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Smith v. Fuerst, 89 Ohio St.3d 456, 2000-Ohio-218.] 
 
 
 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. SMITH, APPELLANT, v. FUERST, CLERK, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Smith v. Fuerst (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 456.] 
Mandamus sought to compel clerk of common pleas court to serve relator notice 
of a journal entry of the dismissal of his petition for postconviction relief — 
Denial of writ by court of appeals affirmed. 
(No. 00-379 — Submitted June 6, 2000 — Decided August 16, 2000.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 77325. 
 
On October 17, 1996, the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 
dismissed the petition for postconviction relief of appellant, Claude A. Smith.  On 
October 18, 1996, the clerk’s office of the common pleas court mailed a copy of 
the entry to Smith. 
 
On November 30, 1999, Smith filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for 
Cuyahoga County for a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, Gerald Fuerst, Clerk 
of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, to serve Smith notice of the 
October 17, 1996 journal entry by certified mail.  Smith claimed that he had not 
received notice of the entry.  Fuerst filed an answer and a motion for summary 
judgment.  In February 2000, the court of appeals granted Fuerst’s motion and 
denied the writ. 
 
This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. 
 
 
2
__________________ 
 
Claude A. Smith, pro se. 
 
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kristen L. 
Lusnia, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Smith asserts that the court of appeals erred in denying the 
writ.  For the following reasons, Smith’s assertion lacks merit. 
 
Fuerst mailed notice of the October 17, 1996 entry to Smith.  Under Civ.R. 
5(B), service was complete upon mailing.  And Fuerst noted in the docket that 
service had been made.  Therefore, Fuerst complied with his duty to serve the entry 
on Smith, and mandamus will not issue to compel an act that has already been 
performed.  State ex rel. Wilson v. Sunderland (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 548, 548-549, 
721 N.E.2d 1055, 1056; see, also, Atkinson v. Grumman Ohio Corp. (1988), 37 
Ohio St.3d 80, 523 N.E.2d 851, paragraph two of the syllabus. 
 
In addition, Smith had adequate remedies at law by a Civ.R. 60(B) motion 
for relief from judgment or appeal to raise his claim that he was entitled to 
additional time to perfect his appeal from the October 17, 1996 judgment.  See 
State ex rel. Thomson v. Doneghy (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 222, 685 N.E.2d 537; 
Defini v. Broadview Hts. (1991), 76 Ohio App.3d 209, 214, 601 N.E.2d 199, 202. 
 
 
3
 
Finally, the fact that Smith may have, as he claims on appeal, already 
unsuccessfully invoked an alternative remedy to raise this issue does not entitle 
him to extraordinary relief in mandamus.  “Where a plain and adequate remedy at 
law has been unsuccessfully invoked, a writ of mandamus will not lie to relitigate 
the same issue.”  State ex rel. Sampson v. Parrott (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 92, 93, 
694 N.E.2d 463. 
 
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.