Title: State ex rel. Hudson 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. Hudson v. Sutula, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-554.] 
 
 
 
 
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-554 
THE STATE EX REL. HUDSON, APPELLANT, v. SUTULA, JUDGE, ET AL., 
APPELLEES. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as State ex rel. Hudson v. Sutula,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-554.] 
Mandamus and procedendo—Sentencing errors—Adequate remedy by appeal 
precludes issuance of writs. 
(No. 2011-1680—Submitted February 8, 2012—Decided February 16, 2012.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, 
No. 96705, 2011-Ohio-4644. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the 
complaint of appellant, William Hudson, for writs of mandamus and procedendo 
to compel appellees, Judge John D. Sutula and the Cuyahoga County Court of 
Common Pleas, to resentence him to account for his allied offenses of similar 
import.  Neither mandamus nor procedendo will issue if the party seeking 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
extraordinary relief has an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.  State 
ex rel. Jelinek v. Schneider, 127 Ohio St.3d 332, 2010-Ohio-5986, 939 N.E.2d 
847, ¶ 13.  Hudson had an adequate remedy by way of appeal to raise the claimed 
sentencing error.  See generally Manns v. Gansheimer, 117 Ohio St.3d 251, 2008-
Ohio-851, 883 N.E.2d 431, ¶ 6 (“sentencing errors are not jurisdictional and are 
not remediable * * * by extraordinary writ”); compare Smith v. Voorhies, 119 
Ohio St.3d 345, 2008-Ohio-4479, 894 N.E.2d 44, ¶ 10 (“allied-offense claims are 
not jurisdictional and are not cognizable in habeas corpus”).  And Hudson’s 
double-jeopardy claim was also remediable by appeal rather than by extraordinary 
writ.  See State ex rel. Douglas v. Burlew, 106 Ohio St.3d 180, 2005-Ohio-4382, 
833 N.E.2d 293, ¶ 15. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
William Hudson, pro se. 
 
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and James E. 
Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
______________________