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

ex rel. Bradford v. Dinkelacker, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-2916.] 

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-2916

THE STATE EX REL. BRADFORD, APPELLANT, v. DINKELACKER, JUDGE,

APPELLEE. 

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

may be cited as State ex rel. Bradford v. Dinkelacker, Slip Opinion 

No. 2016-Ohio-2916.] 

Mandamus—Relator had adequate remedy in ordinary course of law to correct 

judgment entry of his conviction—Court of appeals’ dismissal of mandamus 

action affirmed. 

(No. 2015-1031—Submitted February 23, 2016—Decided May 12, 2016.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-1500237. 

_____________________ 

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Relator, Pele K. Bradford, filed this action in mandamus in the First 

District Court of Appeals to correct the judgment entry of his conviction for 

aggravated murder. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

{¶ 2} Bradford was convicted of aggravated murder in 2004. The jury 

found him guilty “of Aggravated Murder 2903.01(B) as charged in Count I of the 

Indictment.” However, the court’s journal entry stated “[a]ggravated Murder with 

Specifications #1 and #2, 2903-01A/ORCN, SF.” 

{¶ 3} In January 2015, Bradford filed a motion in the Hamilton County 

Court of Common Pleas to correct the judgment entry. Respondent, Judge Patrick 

T. Dinkelacker, denied the motion. Bradford then filed an action in mandamus in 

the First District Court of Appeals. Judge Dinkelacker filed a motion to dismiss 

the mandamus action, arguing that Bradford failed to meet the requirements under 

R.C. 2953.23 for a late petition for postconviction relief and that his motion to 

correct the judgment entry was barred by res judicata. 

{¶ 4} The court of appeals granted Judge Dinkelacker’s motion to dismiss. 

Bradford appealed. 

{¶ 5} To be entitled to extraordinary relief in mandamus, Bradford must 

establish a clear legal right to the requested relief, a clear legal duty on the part of 

Judge Dinkelacker to provide it, 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. 

{¶ 6} Appeal is generally considered an adequate remedy sufficient to 

preclude a writ of mandamus. Shoop v. State, 144 Ohio St.3d 374, 2015-Ohio2068, 43 N.E.3d 432, ¶ 8, citing State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm., 11 Ohio 

St.2d 141, 228 N.E.2d 631 (1967), paragraph three of the syllabus. Bradford could 

have raised the mistake in the original journal entry as part of his direct appeal of 

his conviction. He also could have appealed Judge Dinkelacker’s entry denying his 

motion to correct the judgment entry. He therefore had an adequate remedy in the 

ordinary course of the law. 

Judgment affirmed 
January Term, 2016 

3

and motions for reversal of judgment, to file citation to relevant authority, and to 

take judicial notice of controlling authority denied as moot. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, and FRENCH, JJ., 

concur. 

O’DONNELL and O’NEILL, JJ., dissent. 

_________________ 

 Pele K. Bradford, pro se. 

_________________