[Cite as State v. Wetzel, 2019-Ohio-826.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

KNOX COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO, 

EX REL. SHANE L. GREEN 

 Relator 

-vsRICHARD WETZEL, JUDGE 

 Respondent 

JUDGES: 

: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. 

: Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. 

: Hon. John W. Wise, J. 

: 

: 

: Case No. 18CA15 

: 

: 

: OPINION 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Mandamus 

JUDGMENT: Dismissed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: March 8, 2019 

APPEARANCES: 

For Relator For Respondent 

SHANE L. GREEN PRO SE CHARLES T. MCCONVILLE 

MCI# 578-590 Knox County Prosecutor 

Box 57 117 E. High Street, Ste. 234 

Marion, OH 43301 Mount Vernon, OH 43050 
[Cite as State v. Wetzel, 2019-Ohio-826.]

Gwin, P.J. 

{¶1} Relator Shane Green has filed a Complaint for Writ of Mandamus 

requesting this Court order a new sentencing hearing. He seeks to have this Court order 

the trial court to impose an indefinite sentence of life as well as properly impose postrelease control. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted. 

{¶2} To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, a relator must establish by clear and 

convincing evidence a clear legal right to the requested relief, a clear legal duty on the 

part of the respondent to grant that relief, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the 

ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55, 2012-Ohio69, 960 N.E.2d 452, ¶ 6, 13; State ex rel. Perry Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Husted, Secy., 

2018-Ohio-3830. 

{¶3} Relator previously raised both issues presented in this petition in Knox 

County Case Number 18-CA-03.1 This Court found the sentencing issue was barred by 

res judicata because Relator could have raised the issue on direct appeal. Further, we 

found the term of post-release control was properly imposed. 

{¶4} “[U]nder the doctrine of res judicata, an existing final judgment or decree 

binding the parties is conclusive as to all claims that were or could have been litigated in 

a first lawsuit. Grava, 73 Ohio St.3d at 381–382, 653 N.E.2d 226. Res judicata requires 

 

1

 In that case, we noted, “Appellant makes two separate arguments in his appellate brief. 

First, he contends the trial court failed to state a term of post-release control as mandated 

by law and he was not properly notified of his post-release control. Second, he argues 

that the trial court erred when it did not impose an indefinite prison term under R.C. 

2971.03(A)(3) and instead imposed a definite term of life imprisonment.” State v. Green, 

5th Dist. Knox No. 18-CA-3, 2018-Ohio-1493, ¶ 8. 
Knox County, Case No. 18CA15 3 

a plaintiff to present every ground for relief in the first action or be forever barred from 

asserting it. Id.” State ex rel. Robinson v. Huron Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 143 Ohio 

St.3d 127, 2015–Ohio–1553, 34 N.E.3d 903, ¶ 8 (2015). 

{¶5} Because Relator raised these issues in previous actions, he is barred by 

the doctrine of res judicata from re-litigating those issues in this case. 

{¶6} Relator has failed to demonstrate he is entitled to the issuance of a writ of 

mandamus, therefore, the motion to dismiss is granted. 

By Gwin, P.J., 

Hoffman, J., and 

Wise, John, J., concur