[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 

ex rel. Ridenour v. O’Connell, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-7368.] 

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 Decisions, 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. 

SLIP OPINION NO. 2016-OHIO-7368

THE STATE EX REL. RIDENOUR, APPELLANT, v. O’CONNELL, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as State ex rel. Ridenour v. O’Connell, Slip Opinion No. 

2016-Ohio-7368.] 

Mandamus—Criminal sentencing—R.C. 2929.61(A)—Relator was not entitled to 

be sentenced for a lesser offense—Adequate remedy at law existed to 

challenge sentence—Denial of writ affirmed. 

(No. 2015-2059—Submitted July 12, 2016—Decided October 19, 2016.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. 26592. 

_____________________ 

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the Second District Court of Appeals’ denial of a writ of 

mandamus to appellant, William L. Ridenour. Ridenour alleges that on April 10, 

1972, he pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree murder, one count of 

shooting with the intent to kill, and one count of assault with a deadly weapon. He 

asserts that he was sentenced to two life terms of incarceration, one 1-to-20-year 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

term, and two 2-to-5-year terms, all to run consecutively. He seeks a writ ordering 

the trial judge in his criminal case to resentence him to concurrent sentences for 

manslaughter, even though he pleaded guilty to second-degree murder. Ridenour 

asserts that under R.C. 2929.61(A), none of his sentences should have been greater 

than 1 to 20 years and that they should have been imposed to run concurrently rather 

than consecutively. 

{¶ 2} Ridenour’s argument that he should have been sentenced as if he had 

been convicted of manslaughter rather than murder misinterprets R.C. 2929.61(A), 

which says: 

Persons charged with a capital offense committed prior to January 

1, 1974, shall be prosecuted under the law as it existed at the time 

the offense was committed, and, if convicted, shall be imprisoned 

for life, except that whenever the statute under which any such 

person is prosecuted provides for a lesser penalty under the 

circumstances of the particular case, such lesser penalty shall be 

imposed. 

(Emphasis added.) This statute does not, as Ridenour argues, mean that he should 

have been sentenced to the penalty for a lesser offense, such as manslaughter, but 

rather that he should have been sentenced—as he apparently was—to a lesser 

penalty for the offense that he committed, i.e., second-degree murder. 

{¶ 3} Moreover, as the court of appeals correctly noted, sentencing errors 

are generally not remediable by extraordinary writ, because the defendant usually 

has an adequate remedy at law available by way of direct appeal. See State ex rel. 

Hudson v. Sutula, 131 Ohio St.3d 177, 2012-Ohio-554, 962 N.E.2d 798, ¶ 1, citing 

Manns v. Gansheimer, 117 Ohio St.3d 251, 2008-Ohio-851, 883 N.E.2d 431, ¶ 6. 

Here, Ridenour “ ‘has or had adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law, e.g., 
January Term, 2016 

3

appeal and postconviction relief, for review of any alleged sentencing error,’ ” State 

ex rel. Hughley v. McMonagle, 123 Ohio St.3d 91, 2009-Ohio-4088, 914 N.E.2d 

371, ¶ 1, quoting State ex rel. Jaffal v. Calabrese, 105 Ohio St.3d 440, 2005-Ohio2591, 828 N.E.2d 107, ¶ 5. 

{¶ 4} Ridenour filed in the trial court in his criminal case a motion to modify 

his sentence, based on the same argument that he makes here, and Judge O’Connell 

overruled the motion. Ridenour had access to an adequate remedy in the ordinary 

course of law by way of appeal of that decision, regardless of whether he used that 

remedy. If an adequate remedy was available but the party failed to take advantage 

of it or is time-barred from using it, mandamus will not lie to substitute for that 

remedy. State ex rel. Alhamarshah v. Indus. Comm., 142 Ohio St.3d 524, 2015-

Ohio-1357, 33 N.E.3d 43, ¶ 11; State ex rel. Zimmerman v. Tompkins, 75 Ohio 

St.3d 447, 449, 663 N.E.2d 639 (1996), citing State ex rel. Johnson v. Cleveland 

Hts./Univ. Hts. School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 73 Ohio St.3d 189, 192-193, 652 N.E.2d 

750 (1995). 

{¶ 5} Accordingly, the court of appeals correctly denied Ridenour’s petition 

for a writ of mandamus, and we affirm its judgment. 

Judgment affirmed. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY,

FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 

_________________ 

 William J. Ridenour, pro se 

Mathias H. Heck Jr., Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, and Mary 

E. Montgomery, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney for appellee. 

_________________