Case Name: The State ex rel. Cotton, Appellant, v. Russo, Judge, Appellee
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 2010-05-19
Citations: 125 Ohio St. 3d 449
Docket Number: No. 2010-0108
Parties: The State ex rel. Cotton, Appellant, v. Russo, Judge, Appellee.
Judges: Brown, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 125
Pages: 449–450

Head Matter:
The State ex rel. Cotton, Appellant, v. Russo, Judge, Appellee.
[Cite as State ex rel. Cotton v. Russo, 125 Ohio St.3d 449, 2010-Ohio-2111.]
(No. 2010-0108
Submitted May 12, 2010
Decided May 19, 2010.)

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the claim of appellant, Milton Cotton, for a writ of mandamus or procedendo to compel appellee, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Judge John Russo, to issue a new sentencing entry in Cotton's criminal case to comply with Crim.R. 32(C). Cotton's sentencing entry fully complied with Crim.R. 32(C), as specified in State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197, 2008-Ohio-3330, 893 N.E.2d 163, syllabus. See also State ex rel. Agosto v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 119 Ohio St.3d 366, 2008-Ohio-4607, 894 N.E.2d 314, ¶ 10. And insofar as Cotton attempted to raise claims of sentencing error, he had an adequate remedy by appeal to raise them. Smith v. Smith, 123 Ohio St.3d 145, 2009-Ohio-4691, 914 N.E.2d 1036, ¶ 1. Finally, neither res judicata nor the law of the case precluded the court of appeals' denial of the writs.
Milton Cotton, pro se.
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and James E. Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Judgment affirmed.
Brown, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.