[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Bradford v. Dinkelacker , Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-1342.]

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 De cisions, 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.

S LIP O PINION N O . 2017-O HIO -1342
T HE S TATE EX REL . B RADFORD , A PPELLANT , v. D INKELACKER , J UDGE , A PPELLEE . [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it

may be cited as State ex rel. Bradford v. Dinkelacker , Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-1342.] Mandamus—Appellant had and has used adequa te remedy in ordinary course of law—Court of appeals’ dism issal of petition affirmed. (No. 2016-0252—Submitted February 7, 2017—Decided April 13, 2017.)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-150714.

________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the First District Court of Appeals dismissing the petition of appellant, Pele K. Bradford, for a writ of mandamus. {¶ 2} Bradford seeks an order compelling appellee, Judge Patrick T.
Dinkelacker of the Court of Common Pl eas of Hamilton County, to vacate his sentence as void and to resentence him “according to the verdict returned by theS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 jury.” To obtain a writ of mandamus, Bradford must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that he has a clear lega l right to the requested relief, that Judge Dinkelacker has a clear legal duty to provide it, and that Bradford lacks an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth , 131 Ohio St.3d 55, 2012-Ohio-69, 960 N.E.2d 452, ¶ 6, 13. {¶ 3} Bradford’s mandamus claim asserts an error in sentencing. A sentencing error “does not patently and unamb iguously divest the court or its judges of jurisdiction to enter judgment.” State ex rel. Pruitt v. Donnelly , 129 Ohio St.3d 498, 2011-Ohio-4203, 954 N.E.2d 117, ¶ 2. “In the absence of a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction, a court ha ving general subjec t-matter jurisdiction can determine its own jurisdiction, and a pa rty contesting that jurisdiction has an adequate remedy by appeal.” State ex rel. Plant v. Cosgrove , 119 Ohio St.3d 264, 2008-Ohio-3838, 893 N.E.2d 485, ¶ 5. {¶ 4} In fact, in 2015, Bradford filed a “mo tion to correct the judgment entry pursuant to Criminal Rule 36,” arguing th at the trial court had violated hisconstitutional right to a jury trial “when it effectively ‘amended’ the aggravatedmurder verdict form by entering judgment convicting him under division (A), rather than division (B)” of R.C. 2903.01. State v. Bradford , 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C150207, 2 (May 18, 2016). The trial court denied his motion. On appeal, the First District affirmed and held that while the verdict form was subject to correction under Crim.R. 36, “the trial c ourt, when it entered judgment convicting Bradford under division (A) of the aggravated-mur der statute, effectively made that
correction” and did not ther eby abuse its discretion. Id. , citing State v. Davie , 80 Ohio St.3d 311, 686 N.E.2d 245 (1997) (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in changing the wording in a verdict form after the jury was discharged when the change wa s not demonstrably prejudicial). 1

1 We also note that the applicable sentences for a conviction under R.C. 2903.01 are the same whether the conviction is under division (A) or (B). R.C. 2903.01(F) and 2929.02(A).January Term, 2017

3 {¶ 5} “An appeal is generally considered an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law suffi cient to preclude a writ.” Shoop v. State , 144 Ohio St.3d 374, 2015-Ohio-2068, 43 N.E.3d 432, ¶ 8, citing State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus.
Comm. , 11 Ohio St.2d 141, 228 N.E.2d 631 (1967), paragraph three of the syllabus. Bradford had and has used an adequate reme dy in the ordinary course of the law by way of his 2015 motion and his appeal of the denial of that motion. Therefore, the court of appeals correctly dismissed his petition for a writ of mandamus. {¶ 6} Bradford has also filed a motion for reversal of judgment under S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.07(B). Bradford contends that he is entitled to judgment in his favor because Judge Dinkelacker failed to f ile a brief in this appeal. However, under S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.07(B), we “may accept the appellant’s statement of facts and issues as correct and reverse the judgment if the appellant’s brief reasonably appears to sustain reversal .” (Emphasis added.) Bradford’s brief does not reasonably appear to sustain reversal, and we therefore deny his motion for reversal of judgment. Judgment affirmed
and motion denied.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and O’D ONNELL , K ENNEDY , F RENCH , and O’N EILL , JJ.,

concur. F ISCHER and D E W INE , JJ., not participating.

_________________ Pele K. Bradford, pro se.

_________________