[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Wesley v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas , Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-3489.]

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
. 2021-O HIO -3489 [T HE S TATE EX REL .] W ESLEY , A PPELLANT , v . C UYAHOGA C OUNTY C OURT

OF C OMMON P LEAS , A PPELLEE . [Until this opinion appears in t he Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Wesley v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas , Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-3489.] Mandamus—Writ of mandamus sought to compel common pleas court to rule on appellant’s motion to reinstate bail and set bail terms—A petition for a writ of habeas corpus is the proper cause of action to challenge the denial of bail—The remedy appellant seeks doe s not lie in mandamus—Court of appeals’ dismissal of mandamus action affirmed. (No. 2020-1418—Submitted July 13, 2021—Decided October 5, 2021. )
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 109930, 2020-
Ohio-4921.

________________ Per Curiam.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 {¶ 1} In this direct appeal, appellant , Nelson Roy Wesley, seeks a wr it of mandamus to compel appellee, the Cuyahoga County Court of Commo n Pleas, to rule on Wesley’s motion to reins tate bail and to s et bail terms . The Eighth District Court of Appeals denied the writ. We affirm. Background {¶ 2} Wesley is being held in the Cuyahoga County jail, where he awai ts trial on criminal charges in two cases. He was indicted in the first case in May 2018 on one count of failure to comply (charged as a third-degree fe lony, R.C. 2921.331(B)) and one count of criminal damaging or endangering (charged as a first-degree misdemeanor, R.C. 2909.06(A)(1)). If Wesley is co nvicted of both charges, his maximum sentence for failure to comply is 36 month s, R.C. 2929.14(A)(3)(b), and his maximum sentence for criminal da maging or endangering is 180 days, R.C. 2929.24(A)(1). Under R.C. 2929.4 1(A), he would likely serve any sentence for the first-degree misdemeanor conc urrently with any sentence for the third-degree felony, so the maximum prison ter m that Wesley could receive in the first criminal case is likely 36 months. The tr ial court set bail at $5,000. Wesley posted 10 percent of that amount and was releas ed. {¶ 3} Wesley appeared at several pretrial hearings over the next few months, but in August 2018, he failed to appear at a pretrial h earing because he was incarcerated at the Lorain Correctional Institution for a postr elease-control
violation. The trial court eventu ally reinstated Wesley’s bail

. {¶ 4} Wesley appeared at additional pretrial hearings, but he then fa iled to appear at another pretrial hearing in October 2018, this time b ecause he had been arrested and was being held in th e Cleveland Heights city jail. That arrest led to Wesley’s second criminal case, in which he was indicted on seve n counts, including charges of attempted murder and felonious assault, both with fi rearm specifications. In Wesley’s second criminal case, the trial court set bail in t he amount of $100,000.January Term, 2021

3 {¶ 5} Meanwhile, the trial court revoked Wesley’s bail in the first c ase based on his failure to appear a t the October 2018 pretrial hea ring. In August 2019, Wesley filed a motion to reinsta te the original $5,000 bail amo unt in that case. The state opposed the motion, arguing that the seriousness of the c harges in Wesley’s
second case militated against reinstating the bail in his first case. The trial court denied Wesley’s motion. {¶ 6} Wesley filed two more motions to have his bail reinstated, one in February 2020 and another in June 2020. The trial court had no t ruled on those motions by September 2020, so Wes ley filed a complaint for a wr it of mandamus in the Eighth District Court of Appeals asking that court to is sue an order compelling the trial court to rule on his motions and to set ba il conditions that would allow for his pretrial release in his first case. The court of appeals sua sponte granted an alternative writ requiring the trial court to show c ause why a writ of
mandamus should not issue to com pel a ruling on the pending mot ions. {¶ 7} But the court of appeals sua s ponte dismissed Wesley’s claim to the extent that it sought to compel the trial court to set conditio ns allowing for pretrial release, finding that “[m]andamus may not be used to control ju dicial discretion.” 2020-Ohio-4921, ¶ 10. Wesley asked the court of appeals to rec onsider the dismissal, arguing that he was seeking to compel the trial cour t to fulfill its legal duty to make him bailable, not to control what bail terms the t rial court could set. The court of appeals rejected Wesley’s request for reconsiderat ion and held that under the circumstances of Wesley ’s case, the trial court has d iscretion to revoke
bail and that that discretion ma y not be controlled through a w rit of mandamus. Id. at ¶ 16-18. The court also held that Wesley’s claim for relief “lies in habeas corpus,
not mandamus.” Id . at ¶ 20. {¶ 8} In response to the court of appeals’ show-cause order, the tria l court filed evidence showing that it had recently denied Wesley’s mot ions. The court of appeals therefore denied Wesle y’s remaining claim as moot. Id. at ¶ 12.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4 {¶ 9} Wesley appealed to this court as of right. In his appeal, Wesl ey focuses on his claim that the trial court must set conditions a llowing for pretrial release in his first criminal case; he does not challenge the c ourt of appeals’
conclusion that the remainder of his claim became moot once the trial court ruled on his pending motions. Analysis {¶ 10} The court of appeals gave two reasons for denying Wesley’s requ est for a writ of mandamus. The first reason is that the claim for pretrial bail conditions fails because a writ of mandamus may not issue to control a tri al court’s discretion. Second, the court of appeals held that the remedy Wesley seeks is not available via
a writ of mandamus but instea d is available only through a writ of habeas corpus. {¶ 11} This second reason is dispositive of this appeal, and thus ther e is no reason for us to address any othe r issue. Wesley contends that he is being detained unlawfully. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus is the prop er cause of action for a person seeking to challenge the unlawful restraint of his lib erty due to excessive bail or the complete denial of bail. See Chari v. Vore , 91 Ohio St.3d 323, 325, 744 N.E.2d 763 (2001); State ex rel. Pirman v. Money , 69 Ohio St.3d 591, 594, 635 N.E.2d 26 (1994); State v. Bevacqua , 147 Ohio St. 20, 67 N.E.2d 786 (1946), syllabus; see also R.C. 2725.01. In arguing for a contrary result, Wesley points to State ex rel. Sylvester v. Neal , 140 Ohio St.3d 47, 2014-Ohio-2926, 14 N.E.3d 1024, a case in which we granted a writ of mandamus to require a tria l court to allow a
defendant’s bail to be satisfied by surety, id . at ¶ 49. But Sylvester does not help Wesley, because the relators in that case were sureties, not de fendants seeking release from jail. See id . at ¶ 1-8. To challenge the denial of bail, Wesley must file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Conclusion {¶ 12} The proper respondent in a habeas action is the person who has legal custody of the individual, State ex rel. Sherrills v. State , 91 Ohio St.3d 133, 742January Term, 2021

5 N.E.2d 651 (2001), citing R.C. 2725.04(B), and Wesley filed thi s action against the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. Because Wesley’s claim does not lie in mandamus, we affirm the court of appeals’ judgment. Judgment affirmed.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and K ENNEDY , F ISCHER , D E W INE , D ONNELLY , and
S TEWART , JJ., concur.
B RUNNER , J., concurs in judgment only.

_________________ Nelson Roy Wesley, pro se. Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga Count y Prosecuting Attorney, and James E. Moss, Assistant Prosecuti ng Attorney, for respondent.

_________________