[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Sands v. Culotta , Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-1137.]

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 -1137

T HE S TATE EX REL

. S ANDS , A PPELLANT , v . C ULOTTA , 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. Sands v. Culotta , Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-1137.] Mandamus—Jurisdiction—Court of appeals’ judgment was a final, appealable order—Appellant had adequate remedy in th e ordinary course of the law to seek correction of alleged errors in award of jail-time credit—Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed. (No. 2020-0837—Submitted Janua ry 26, 2021—Decided April 7, 2021 .)

A PPEAL from the Court of App eals for Lake County, No. 2020-L-042, 2020-Ohio-3092.

________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} Appellant, Joseph A. Sands, appeals the judgment of the Elevent h District Court of Appeals dismis sing his complaint for a writ o f mandamus against appellee, Lake County Common Pleas Court Judge Vincent A. Culot ta. We affirm.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 Background {¶ 2} In December 2006, Sands was convicted in the Lake County Common Pleas Court of conspiracy to commit aggravated murder and other felonies and sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 20 years. Sands filed with the trial court a motion to correct his award of j ail-time credit. Judge Culot ta granted the motion and issued a judgment entry crediting Sands with additional jai l-time credit, but Sands still believed that the court had failed to provide him w ith the correct amount of jail-time credit. {¶ 3} Sands unsuccessfully appealed the trial court’s judgment on his jailtime-credit motion to the Eleventh District. See State v. Sands , 11th Dist. Lake Nos. 2019-L-022 and 2019-L-023, 2019-Ohio-4925. He then sought discretionary review of the Eleventh District’s judgment in this court, which we denied. See 158 Ohio St.3d 1412, 2020-Ohio-518, 139 N.E.3d 933. {¶ 4} On March 23, 2020, Sands filed two mandamus complaints in the

Eleventh District. In one of t hose cases, Sands sought a writ of mandamus against Lake County Prosecuting Attorney Charles E. Coulson, alleging t hat Coulson had a duty to dismiss Sands’s convictions because they were obtaine d through perjured testimony. The court of appeals granted Coulson’s motion to di smiss that complaint. See State ex rel. Sands v. Coulson , 11th Dist. Lake No. 2020-L-041, 2020-Ohio-3246, ¶ 7. {¶ 5} In the other case, which led to the appeal now before this cour t, Sands sought to compel Judge Culotta t o conduct a new sentencing hear ing and to correct Sands’s jail-time-credit award. The court of appeals granted J udge Culotta’s motion to dismiss that complaint. 2020-Ohio-3092, ¶ 8. Howeve r, the court’s opinion did not address the jail-time-credit issue. Instead, t he court—perhaps assuming that the two mandamus co mplaints raised the same issue —characterized Sands’s complaint as seeking a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Culotta to dismiss his convictions “as void on the grounds that [they were ] obtained byJanuary Term, 2021

3 perjured testimony.” Id . at ¶ 2. The court of appeals held that the complaint failed to state a claim in mandamus, because Sands had an adequate rem edy in the ordinary course of the law by wh ich to raise his perjury allega tion. Id . at ¶ 6. {¶ 6} Sands appealed to this court. Legal analysis Is the court of appeals’ judgment of dismissal a final, appealable order? {¶ 7} Before turning to the merits of this appeal, we must first cons ider Sands’s contention that this court lacks jurisdiction because t he court of appeals’ judgment of dismissal is not a final, appealable order. Our ap pellate jurisdiction extends only to orders that are final and appealable. Ohio Con stitution, Article IV, Sections 2(B)(2) and 3(B)(2). Under Article IV, Section 2(B)(2 )(a)(i) of the Ohio Constitution, cases originating in Ohio’s courts of appeals may be appealed to this court as a matter of right. “R.C. 2505.03, however, limits the appellate jurisdiction of courts, including the Supreme Court, to the review of final orders, judgments, or decrees. This jurisdictional issue cannot be waived and may be raised by this court sua sponte.” State ex rel. Scruggs v. Sadler , 97 Ohio St.3d 78, 2002-Ohio-5315, 776 N.E.2d 101, ¶ 4. A court’s order is final and appealable i f the requirements of

R.C. 2505.02 are met. Id. at ¶ 5. {¶ 8} An order is final and appealable when it is “[a]n order that af fects a substantial right in an action that in effect determines the ac tion and prevents a judgment.” R.C. 2505.02(B)(1); Crown Servs., Inc. v. Miami Valley Paper Tube

Co. , ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2020-Ohio-4409, ___ N.E.3d ___, ¶ 27. “F or an order to determine the action and prevent a judgment for the party appea ling, it must dispose of the whole merits of the cause or some separate and distinct branch thereof and leave nothing for the determination of the court.” Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Mental Retardation & Dev. Disabilities v. Professionals Guild of Ohio , 46 Ohio St.3d 147, 153, 545 N.E.2d 1260 (1989). The court of appeals’ judgment in this case satisfies that finality requirement. Notwithstanding the judgment’s fail ure to address theS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4 sole claim in the complaint—whether Sands is entitled to a writ of mandamus compelling a recalculation of his jail-time credit—the court of appeals denied the writ in a judgment that will have the effect of res judicata. See State ex rel. Arcadia Acres v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs. , 123 Ohio St.3d 54, 2009-Ohio-4176, 914 N.E.2d 170, ¶ 15 (holding that a dismissal for failure to s tate a claim upon which relief can be granted ope rates as an adjudication on the merits, such that res judicata applies). {¶ 9} We hold that the court of appeals’ judgment is final and appeal able, and so we turn to the issue whether the court of appeals proper ly dismissed the mandamus complaint for failure t o state a claim upon which reli ef can be granted. The complaint does not state a cognizable mandamus claim {¶ 10} Sands is ultimately seeking a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Culotta to recalculate his jail-time credit. Sands is correct that the court of appeals failed to address the claim he actually asserted and that it th erefore dismissed the complaint for an erroneous reason. However, we will not revers e a correct judgment merely because erroneous reasons were given for it. Salloum v.

Falkowski , 151 Ohio St.3d 531, 2017-Ohio-8722, 90 N.E.3d 918, ¶ 12. {¶ 11} To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, a party must establish, b y clear and convincing evidence, (1) a clear legal right to the request ed relief, (2) a clear legal duty on the part of the r espondent to provide it, and (3) 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-Ohio-69, 960 N.E.2d 452, ¶ 6, 13. For a court t o dismiss a mandamus complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to s tate a claim upon which relief can be granted, it must appear beyond doubt from t he complaint that the relator can prove no set of facts warranting relief, after all factual allegations of the complaint are presumed true, and all reasonable inferences are made in the

relator’s favor. State ex rel. Natl. Elec. Contrs. Assn., Ohio Conference v. Ohio Bur. of Emp. Servs. , 83 Ohio St.3d 179, 181, 699 N.E.2d 64 (1998). We review deJanuary Term, 2021

5 novo a decision granting a motion to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B) (6). Alford v. Collins-McGregor Operating Co. , 152 Ohio St.3d 303, 2018-Ohio-8, 95 N.E.3d 382, ¶ 10. {¶ 12} Alleged errors regarding an award of jail-time credit are not cognizable in mandamus, because the inmate may raise that issue in his direct appeal of his criminal conviction, State ex rel. Rankin v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. , 98 Ohio St.3d 476, 2003-Ohio-2061, 786 N.E.2d 1286, ¶ 10, or in a postsentence motion to correct jail-time cre dit pursuant to R.C. 2929.19(B)( 2)(g)(iii). Because there is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law, a writ of mandamus against the sentencing judge will not lie. See State ex rel. Jones v. O’Connor , 84 Ohio St.3d 426, 704 N.E.2d 1223 (1999); see also State v. Thompson , 147 Ohio St.3d 29, 2016-Ohio-2769, 59 N.E.3d 1264, ¶ 13 (“the denial of a motion for jailtime credit pursuant to R.C. 2929.19( B)(2)(g)(iii) is a final, appealable order”). As noted above, Sands previously filed a motion to correct his jai l-time credit and pursued an unsuccessful appeal when that motion was denied. See Sands , 11th Dist. Lake Nos. 2019-L-022 and 2019-L-023, 2019-Ohio-4925. Thu s, his claim is also barred by the doctrine of res judicata. For these reasons , the mandamus complaint was properly dismissed. {¶ 13} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. Judgment affirmed.

O’C ONNOR , C.J., and F ISCHER , D E W INE , D ONNELLY , and S TEWART , JJ.,

concur.

K ENNEDY and B RUNNER , JJ., concur in judgment only.

_________________ Joseph A. Sands, pro se. Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecuting Attorney, and Micha el L. DeLeone, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

_________________