Title: State ex rel. Nelson v. Russo

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. Nelson v. Russo, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-6552.] 
 
 
 
 
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-6552 
THE STATE EX REL. NELSON, APPELLANT, v. RUSSO, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Nelson v. Russo,  
Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-6552.] 
Appellant had adequate remedy by way of appeal to raise claim of sentencing 
error—Court of appeals’ judgment denying request for writ of mandamus 
affirmed. 
(No. 2011-1438—Submitted December 7, 2011—Decided December 22, 2011.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, 
No. 96706, 2011-Ohio-3698. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the request 
of appellant, Carl A. Nelson Sr., for a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, 
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Judge Nancy M. Russo, to correct an 
alleged clerical error in his sentencing entry so that his sentences for four counts 
of rape and one count of kidnapping run concurrently rather than consecutively. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} Nelson had an adequate remedy by way of appeal to raise his claim 
of sentencing error.  State ex rel. Gooden v. Teodosio, 128 Ohio St.3d 538, 2011-
Ohio-1915, 947 N.E.2d 1206, ¶ 3.  And because Nelson has already raised his 
claim of sentencing error, see State v. Nelson, Cuyahoga App. No. 95420, 2010-
Ohio-6032, res judicata bars him from using mandamus to relitigate the same 
issue.  See State ex rel. McDonald v. Mitrovich, 113 Ohio St.3d 167, 2007-Ohio-
1258, 863 N.E.2d 172, ¶ 8.  Nor can Nelson raise any asserted constitutional 
claim that he could have raised in his prior appeal.  Smith v. Voorhies, 119 Ohio 
St.3d 345, 2008-Ohio-4479, 894 N.E.2d 44, ¶ 11. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Carl A. Nelson Sr., pro se. 
 
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and James  
Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
______________________