[Cite as State ex rel. Hudson v. Sutula, 2011-Ohio-4644.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio 

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 96705 

 

STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. 

WILLIAM HUDSON 

RELATOR 

vs. 

 

JUDGE JOHN D. SUTULA, ET AL. 

RESPONDENTS 

 

JUDGMENT: 

COMPLAINT DISMISSED 

Writ of Mandamus 

Motion No. 444515 

Order No. 447016 

RELEASE DATE: September 14, 2011 
2

 

FOR RELATOR

William Hudson, pro se 

Inmate No. 523-118 

Mansfield Correctional Institution 

P.O. Box 788 

Mansfield, Ohio 44901 

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT

William D. Mason 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

By: James E. Moss 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

8th Floor Justice Center 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J.: 

{¶ 1} Relator, William Hudson, is the defendant in State v. Hudson, Cuyahoga Cty. 

Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-478205, which has been assigned to respondent judge. 

Hudson complains that respondent judge “did not properly address the issue of allied 

offenses.” Complaint, ¶5. He contends that the sentence is void. He requests that this 

court compel respondent judge and respondent court of common pleas to return him before 

that court, issue a “lawful sentence” and enter “a valid final judgment.” Complaint, Ad 
3

Damnum Clause. For the reasons stated below, we deny Hudson’s request for relief in 

mandamus and/or procedendo. 

{¶ 2} The requirements for mandamus are well-established: (1) the relator must have 

a clear legal right to the requested relief, (2) the respondent must have a clear legal duty to 

perform the requested relief and (3) there must be no adequate remedy at law. Mandamus 

may compel a court to exercise judgment or discharge a function, but it may not control 

judicial discretion, even if that discretion is grossly abused. Additionally, mandamus is not a 

substitute for appeal and does not lie to correct errors and procedural irregularities in the 

course of a case. If the relator has or had an adequate remedy, relief in mandamus is 

precluded — regardless of whether the relator used the remedy. State ex rel. Smith v. Fuerst, 

Cuyahoga App. No. 86118, 2005-Ohio-3829, at ¶4. 

{¶ 3} The criteria for relief in procedendo are well-established. The relator must 

demonstrate: (1) a clear legal right to proceed in the underlying matter; and (2) the lack of an 

adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. See, e.g., State ex rel. Charvat v. Frye, 

114 Ohio St.3d 76, 2007-Ohio-2882, 868 N.E.2d 270, at ¶13. 

{¶ 4} Respondents have filed a motion to dismiss and argue that: Hudson does not 

have a clear legal right to relief; respondents do not have a clear legal duty to perform the 

requested relief; and Hudson has or had an adequate remedy at law. 
4

{¶ 5} In State ex rel. Martin v. Russo, Cuyahoga App. No. 96328, 2011-Ohio-3268, 

Martin sought relief in mandamus and argued “that the consecutive sentences for receiving 

stolen property and failure to comply are void because they involve allied offenses.” Id. at ¶

1. This court observed, however, that “allied offense claims and sentencing issues are not 

jurisdictional. Thus, they are properly addressed on appeal and not through an extraordinary 

writ. Smith v. Voorhies, 119 Ohio St.3d 345, 2008-Ohio-4479, 894 N.E.2d 44; State ex rel. 

Dye v.. Alvis (1949), 86 Ohio App. 137, 90 N.E.2d 416; State v. Newell, Cuyahoga App. No. 

89016, 2007-Ohio-400; and State ex rel. Oden v. Character (Sept. 26, 1994), Cuyahoga App. 

No. 67734.” Id. at ¶8 (footnote deleted). 

{¶ 6} Likewise, in this action, Hudson argues that he is entitled to relief in mandamus 

and/or procedendo because respondent judge imposed consecutive sentences for attempted 

murder, felonious assault and having weapons while under disability. Yet, as Martin

demonstrates, Hudson had an adequate remedy by way of an appeal to assert that he was 

convicted of allied offenses and to challenge the propriety of his sentence. As a 

consequence, relief in mandamus and/or procedendo is not appropriate. 

{¶ 7} Additionally, Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a) requires that a complaint in an original 

action be verified and supported by an affidavit specifying the details of the claims. “It is 

well-established that a relator’s conclusory statement in an affidavit does not comply with the 

requirement of Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a) that an affidavit specify the details of the claim. 
5

Failure to do so is a basis for denying relief. See, e.g., State ex rel. Castro v. Corrigan,

Cuyahoga App. No. 96488, 2011-Ohio-1701.” State ex rel. Wright v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court 

of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga App. No. 96397, 2011-Ohio-2159, at ¶4. 

{¶ 8} Hudson’s affidavit states, in part: “The statements contained in paragraph 1 

through 11 in the Complaint/Petition for Writs of Mandamus and/or Procedendo are accurate 

representations of the actual events in the Relator’s Criminal case[.]” Hudson Affidavit, ¶2 

(capitalization in original). Hudson’s affidavit does not contain any averments specifying the 

details of the claim. His failure to comply with Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a) is a sufficient basis 

for denying relief. 

{¶ 9} Accordingly, respondents’ motion to dismiss is granted. Relator to pay costs. 

The clerk is directed to serve upon the parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry 

upon the journal. Civ.R. 58(B). 

Complaint dismissed. 

 

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, JUDGE 

MELODY J. STEWART, P.J., and 

JAMES J. SWEENEY, J., CONCUR