Title: State ex rel. Tucker v. Forchione

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. Tucker v. Forchione, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-6291.] 
 
 
 
 
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-6291 
THE STATE EX REL. TUCKER, APPELLANT, v. FORCHIONE, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Tucker v. Forchione,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-6291.] 
Mandamus — Sentencing — Petitioner had adequate remedy at law by way of 
direct appeal to raise claim that he did not receive proper notification of 
postrelease control — Sentencing entry contained sufficient language to 
provide such notice — Writ denied. 
(No. 2010-0479 — Submitted August 10, 2010 — Decided December 28, 2010.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Stark County, 
No. 2009CA00240, 2010-Ohio-530. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the 
petition for a writ of mandamus of appellant, Eric Tucker.  Tucker “had an 
adequate remedy by way of direct appeal from his sentence to raise his claim that 
he did not receive proper notification about postrelease control at his sentencing 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
hearing.”  Briseno v. Cook, 121 Ohio St.3d 38, 2009-Ohio-308, 901 N.E.2d 798, ¶ 
1; Patterson v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 120 Ohio St.3d 311, 2008-Ohio-6147, 
898 N.E.2d 950, ¶ 8.  And Tucker’s February 1, 1999 sentencing entry 
“sufficiently included language that postrelease control was part of his sentence 
so as to afford him sufficient notice to raise any claimed errors on appeal rather 
than by extraordinary writ.”  State ex rel. Pruitt v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of 
Common Pleas, 125 Ohio St.3d 402, 2010-Ohio-1808, 928 N.E.2d 722, ¶ 4; 
Watkins v. Collins, 111 Ohio St.3d 425, 2006-Ohio-5082, 857 N.E.2d 78, ¶ 51-53.  
Tucker’s sentencing entry constituted a final, appealable order, and he had an 
adequate remedy by way of appeal to raise his claims.  Pruitt, at ¶ 3. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
BROWN, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
 
LANZINGER, J., dissents. 
__________________ 
 
Eric Tucker, pro se. 
 
John D. Ferrero, Stark County Prosecuting Attorney, and Ronald Mark 
Caldwell, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
______________________