Title: State ex rel. Billings v. Friedland

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Billings v. Friedland, 88 Ohio St.3d 237, 2000-Ohio-317.] 
 
 
 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. BILLINGS, APPELLANT, v. FRIEDLAND, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Billings v. Friedland (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 237.] 
Mandamus to compel common pleas court judge to vacate relator’s convictions 
and sentence for failure to comply with jury-waiver requirements of R.C. 
2945.05 — Court of appeals’ grant of motion for summary judgment 
affirmed. 
(No. 99-1823 — Submitted January 25, 2000 — Decided March 22, 2000.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 76597. 
 
Following a bench trial, the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 
convicted appellant, Anton I. Billings, of aggravated arson, improper discharge of 
a firearm, and two counts of felonious assault with specifications, and sentenced 
him to an aggregate prison term of fifteen to forty years.  On appeal, the court of 
appeals affirmed his convictions and sentence.  State v. Billings (1995), 103 Ohio 
App.3d 343, 659 N.E.2d 799, appeal not allowed (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 1455, 656 
N.E.2d 950.  The court of appeals rejected Billings’s claim that his trial court had 
not complied with the R.C. 2945.05 jury-waiver requirements.  Billings, 103 Ohio 
App.3d at 347-348, 659 N.E.2d at 801-802. 
 
In October 1999, Billings filed a complaint in the court of appeals for a writ 
of mandamus to compel appellee, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 
 
 
2
Judge Carolyn B. Friedland, his trial court judge, to vacate his convictions and 
sentence because she failed to comply with the jury-waiver requirements of R.C. 
2945.05.  The court of appeals granted Judge Friedland’s motion for summary 
judgment. 
 
This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. 
__________________ 
 
Anton I. Billings, pro se. 
 
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Lisa Reitz 
Williamson, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Billings asserts that the court of appeals erred in denying the 
requested extraordinary relief in mandamus.  For the following three reasons, we 
find that Billings’s claims lack merit and affirm the judgment of the court of 
appeals. 
 
First, any failure to comply with R.C. 2945.05 may be remedied only in a 
direct appeal from a criminal conviction, and not by extraordinary writ.  Jackson v. 
Rose (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 51, 679 N.E.2d 684, 685; State v. Pless (1996), 74 
Ohio St.3d 333, 658 N.E.2d 766, paragraph two of the syllabus. 
 
Second, if a plain and adequate remedy at law has been unsuccessfully 
invoked, a writ of mandamus will not issue to relitigate the same issue.  State ex 
 
 
3
rel. Sampson v. Parrott (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 92, 93, 694 N.E.2d 463, 463-464.  
Billings cannot relitigate the same R.C. 2945.05 claim he raised in his direct appeal 
in a subsequent mandamus action. 
 
Finally, as the court of appeals correctly held, because Billings essentially 
requests release from prison, mandamus is not the appropriate remedy.  State ex 
rel. Larkins v. Aurelius (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 112, 113, 702 N.E.2d 79, 79-80. 
 
Accordingly, 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.