Title: State ex rel. Barr v. Pittman

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. Barr v. Pittman, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-4989.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2010-OHIO-4989 
THE STATE EX REL. BARR, APPELLANT, v. PITTMAN, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Barr v. Pittman,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-4989.] 
Court of appeals’ judgment dismissing petition for writ of mandamus affirmed. 
(No. 2010-1069 — Submitted October 13, 2010 — Decided October 20, 2010.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Portage County, 
No. 2010-P-0006, 2010-Ohio-2293. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the 
petition of appellant, Harry Barr, for a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, 
Portage County Court of Common Pleas Judge Laurie J. Pittman, to vacate his 
conviction and sentence for attempted rape.1  Barr’s claim that he was denied his 
                                                 
1. Barr is also imprisoned on convictions for other crimes. See http://www.drc. 
ohio.gov/OffenderSearch/Search.aspx.  Otherwise, his mandamus action would be improper 
because it would seek to compel his release from prison, which would require him to file a habeas 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
right to a speedy trial is not cognizable in an extraordinary-writ action.  See State 
ex rel. Jackim v. Ambrose, 118 Ohio St.3d 512, 2008-Ohio-3182, 890 N.E.2d 324, 
and cases cited therein.  Barr had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of 
law by appeal to raise his claim, and he did so, albeit unsuccessfully, in State v. 
Barr, Portage App. No. 2008-P-0031, 2009-Ohio-1146, ¶ 42-56, appeal not 
accepted for review, 122 Ohio St.3d 1480, 2009-Ohio-3625, 910 N.E.2d 479.  
Mandamus will not lie to gain successive appellate reviews of the same issue.  
State ex rel. Woods v. Oak Hill Community Med. Ctr. (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 459, 
462, 746 N.E.2d 1108. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
BROWN, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Harry Barr, pro se. 
 
Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecuting Attorney, and Denise L. 
Smith, Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
______________________ 
                                                                                                                                     
corpus petition.  State ex rel. Gordon v. Murphy, 112 Ohio St.3d 329, 2006-Ohio-6572, 859 
N.E.2d 928, ¶ 5.