Title: State ex rel. Cotton 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. Cotton v. Russo, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-2111.] 
 
 
 
 
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-2111 
THE STATE EX REL. COTTON, APPELLANT, v. RUSSO, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Cotton v. Russo,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-2111.] 
Appeal from dismissal of a petition for a writ of mandamus or procedendo — 
Adequate remedy at law — No error in sentencing entry — Judgment 
affirmed. 
(No. 2010-0108 — Submitted May 12, 2010 — Decided May 19, 2010.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, 
No. 94116, 2010-Ohio-16. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the claim 
of appellant, Milton Cotton, for a writ of mandamus or procedendo to compel 
appellee, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Judge John Russo, to issue a 
new sentencing entry in Cotton’s criminal case to comply with Crim.R. 32(C).  
Cotton’s sentencing entry fully complied with Crim.R. 32(C), as specified in State 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197, 2008-Ohio-3330, 893 N.E.2d 163, syllabus.  See 
also State ex rel. Agosto v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 119 Ohio 
St.3d 366, 2008-Ohio-4607, 894 N.E.2d 314, ¶ 10.  And insofar as Cotton 
attempted to raise claims of sentencing error, he had an adequate remedy by 
appeal to raise them.  Smith v. Smith, 123 Ohio St.3d 145, 2009-Ohio-4691, 914 
N.E.2d 1036, ¶ 1.  Finally, neither res judicata nor the law of the case precluded 
the court of appeals’ denial of the writs. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
BROWN, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Milton Cotton, pro se. 
 
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and James E. 
Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
______________________