Title: State ex rel. Koller v. Sutula

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. Koller v. Sutula, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-3834.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2012-OHIO-3834 
THE STATE EX REL. KOLLER, APPELLANT, v. SUTULA, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as State ex rel. Koller v. Sutula,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-3834.] 
Court of appeals’ judgment dismissing complaint for writs of mandamus and 
procedendo affirmed. 
(No. 2012-0434—Submitted August 22, 2012—Decided August 30, 2012.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County,  
No. 97173, 2012-Ohio-369. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the 
complaint of appellant, Kevin Koller, for writs of mandamus and procedendo to 
compel appellee, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Judge Kathleen Ann 
Sutula, to enter a lawful sentence for him.  “Neither mandamus nor procedendo 
will issue if the party seeking extraordinary relief has an adequate remedy in the 
ordinary course of law.”  State ex rel. Hudson v. Sutula, 131 Ohio St.3d 177, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
2012-Ohio-554, 962 N.E.2d 798, ¶ 1.  Koller’s allied-offense claims are 
nonjurisdictional and are not cognizable in an extraordinary-writ action, and 
Koller had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law to raise his claims in 
an appeal from his sentencing entry.  See State ex rel. Agosto v. Gallagher, 131 
Ohio St.3d 176, 2012-Ohio-563, 962 N.E.2d 796, ¶ 3.  Koller’s double-jeopardy 
claim was also remediable by appeal rather than by extraordinary writ.  See 
Hudson at ¶ 1. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Kevin Koller, pro se. 
______________________