[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Nelson v. Russo , Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-1541.]

NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to f ormal revision before it is pu blished in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are reques ted to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohi o, 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
. 2020-O HIO -1541
T HE S TATE EX REL
. N ELSON , A PPELLANT , v . R USSO , J UDGE , A PPELLEE . [Until this opinion appears in t he Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Nelson v. Russo , Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-1541.] Mandamus—Inmate had adequate remedy at law by way of direct appeal to challenge his consecutive sentence s—Court of appeals’ dismissal of petition affirmed. (No. 2019-1455—Submitted February 11, 2020—Decided April 22, 20 20.)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 108531,
2019-Ohio-3895.

__________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} Appellant, Carl A. Nelson Sr., a ppeals the Eighth District Cour t of Appeals’ judgment dismissing his petition for a writ of mandamu s. Nelson seeks to compel appellee, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Judge NancyS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 Margaret Russo, to vacate the consecutive prison sentences impo sed on Nelson in 1987. For the reasons explain ed below, we affirm. Factual Background {¶ 2} Nelson was convicted in 1987 of f our counts of rape and one cou nt of kidnapping of a teenage girl. Following a sentencing hearing, the common pleas court journalized an entry impos ing prison terms of 15 to 25 ye ars for each of the five counts, to be served consecu tively. The Eighth District a ffirmed Nelson’s convictions on direct appeal. State v. Nelson , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 54791, 1989 Ohio App. LEXIS 908 (Mar. 16, 1989). In his appeal, Nelson did not assign any error related to the imposition of consecutive prison terms. See id. Nelson later sought postconviction relief, which was denied. State v. Nelson , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 77094, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 4279 (Sept. 21, 2000). As in his direct appeal, Nelson did not cha llenge the consecutive prison terms. See id. {¶ 3} In 2010, Nelson filed in the trial court a motion to amend his sentence under Crim.R. 36, arguing that the sentencing entry imposing co nsecutive terms
contained a clerical error because it was inconsistent with the court’s oral pronouncement during the sentencing hearing. The trial court d enied his motion, and the court of appeals affirmed. State v. Nelson , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95420, 2010-Ohio-6032. The court of appeal s concluded that the senten cing-hearing transcript demonstrated the tri al court’s intent to impose cons ecutive sentences. Id. at ¶ 14. The court of appeals also determined that Nelson’s ac tion was barred by the doctrine of res judicata because he could have raised the a lleged sentencing error in his previous appeals. Id. at ¶ 12-13. {¶ 4} Undeterred by the res judicata ruling, Nelson made subsequent challenges to his consecutive sentences. In 2011, Nelson sough t a writ of mandamus in the Eighth District to compel Judge Russo to “corre ct a clerical error” in his sentence. The Eighth District denied the writ, State ex rel. Nelson v. Russo , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 96706, 2011-Ohio-3698, and this court af firmed, 131 OhioJanuary Term, 2020

3 St.3d 51, 2011-Ohio-6552, 960 N.E.2d 448. Then, in 2018, Nelso n filed in the trial
court a motion to vacate his consecutive sentences as void. Th e trial court denied Nelson’s motion, and the Eigh th District affirmed. State v. Nelson , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 106798, 2018-Ohio-4794. {¶ 5} In yet a third challenge to the consecutive sentences, Nelson commenced this case in the Eighth District on May 7, 2019. Nel son seeks a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Russo to vacate his consecutive sen tences, arguing that the sentences are void because Nelson was not present at t he time that the “increased” aggregate sentence was imposed. Though Nelson ackn owledges he was present for the sentencing h earing, he argues that he was n ot present when the court journalized the sentencing entry imposing consecutive sen tences. According to Nelson, the consecutive sentences therefore violate Crim.R. 43(A) and his dueprocess rights. {¶ 6} The Eighth District dismissed Nelson’s writ acti on, determining that res judicata barred his claim a nd that his prior appeals were a n adequate remedy at law to address the alleged infirmity in his consecutive sentenc es. 2019-Ohio-3895, ¶ 8-9. The Eighth District also reiterated its previous ruling that the trial court intended to impose consecutive sentences at Nelson’s 1987 sente ncing hearing and imposed sentence accordingly. Id. at ¶ 8. {¶ 7} Nelson appealed to this court as of right. Analysis {¶ 8} To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, Nelson must show a clear legal right to the requested extraordi nary relief, a clear legal duty on the part of Judge Russo to provide the relief, and t he lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law. State ex rel. Cowell v. Croce , 157 Ohio St.3d 103, 2019-Ohio-2844, 131 N.E.3d 934, ¶ 4. This court reviews de novo a lower court’ s dismissal of a
mandamus action. State ex rel. McKinney v. Schmenk , 152 Ohio St.3d 70, 2017- Ohio-9183, 92 N.E.3d 871, ¶ 8.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4 {¶ 9} In an earlier case, this court affirmed the denial of Nelson’s request for a writ of mandamus because (1) Nelson had an adequate remed y at law by way of his direct appeal and (2) res judicata barred him from relit igating sentencing
issues he raised or could have raised in his prior appeal. State ex rel. Nelson , 131 Ohio St.3d 51, 2011-Ohio-6552, 960 N.E.2d 448, at ¶ 2. The sam e reasoning applies in this case. {¶ 10} Nelson is reprising his argument that consecutive sentences sho uld not have been imposed, albeit under a different legal theory. Rather than positing
that the consecutive sentences were a “clerical error” correcta ble under Crim.R. 36, Nelson argues this time that Crim.R. 43(A) and due-process prin ciples render his consecutive sentences void. But as a general matter, an extrao rdinary writ is not the proper remedy for alleged sentencing errors, because a conv icted defendant has or had an adequate remedy at law by way of direct appeal. State ex rel. Ridenour
v. O’Connell , 147 Ohio St.3d 351, 2016-Ohio-7368, 65 N.E.3d 742, ¶ 3. Nelso n’s challenge to his consecutive sent ences falls within this genera l rule. Cowell at ¶ 5. {¶ 11} Moreover, res judicata bars Nelson from litigating alleged sentencing errors that he raise d or could have raised on direct appeal. State v.
Saxon , 109 Ohio St.3d 176, 2006-Ohio-1245, 846 N.E.2d 824, ¶ 16-17. Nelson could have raised the arguments asserted in this case in his di rect appeal. He failed
to do so and cannot use a manda mus action as a substitute for a ppellate review.
Cowell at ¶ 6. {¶ 12} Res judicata also bars Nelson fro m raising claims he could have asserted in his previous mandamus action. State ex rel. Newell v. Gaul , 135 Ohio St.3d 187, 2013-Ohio-68, 985 N.E.2d 463, ¶ 2; see also Hughes v. Calabrese , 95 Ohio St.3d 334, 2002-Ohio-2217, 767 N.E.2d 725, ¶ 12 (“Res judi cata bars the litigation of all claims that either were or might have been li tigated in a first lawsuit”). Having already raised claims of sentencing error in his previousJanuary Term, 2020

5 mandamus action, Nelson is barred from asserting additional cla ims of sentencing
error that he could have raised there. Judgment affirmed.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and F RENCH , F ISCHER , D E W INE , and D ONNELLY , JJ.,

concur. K ENNEDY , J., concurs in judgment only.
S TEWART , J., not participating.

_________________ Carl A. Nelson Sr., pro se. Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and James E. Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

_________________