Case Name: The State ex rel. Larkins, Appellant, v. Aurelius, Judge, Appellee
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1998-12-09
Citations: 84 Ohio St. 3d 112
Docket Number: No. 98-1300
Parties: The State ex rel. Larkins, Appellant, v. Aurelius, Judge, Appellee.
Judges: Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 84
Pages: 112–113

Head Matter:
The State ex rel. Larkins, Appellant, v. Aurelius, Judge, Appellee.
[Cite as State ex rel. Larkins v. Aurelius (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 112.]
(No. 98-1300
Submitted October 12, 1998
Decided December 9, 1998.)
Ronald Larkins, pro se.
Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Saleh S. Awadallah, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Larkins asserts that the court of appeals erred by denying the writ of mandamus to vacate his criminal convictions. For the following reasons, however, we find that Larkins's claims are meritless and affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
As the court of appeals correctly held, the failure to comply with R.C. 2945.05 may be remedied only in a direct appeal from a criminal conviction. State v. Pless (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 333, 658 N.E.2d 766, paragraph two of the syllabus. A claimed violation of R.C. 2945.05 is not the proper subject for an extraordinary writ. See Jackson v. Rose (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 51, 679 N.E.2d 684, 685.
In addition, because Larkins essentially requests release from prison, mandamus will not he. State ex rel. Sampson v. Parrott (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 92, 93, 694 N.E.2d 463, 463-464.
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.