Case Name: The State ex rel. Blanton, Appellant, v. Hany, Judge, Appellee
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 2012-09-18
Citations: 133 Ohio St. 3d 120
Docket Number: No. 2012-0719
Parties: The State ex rel. Blanton, Appellant, v. Hany, Judge, Appellee.
Judges: O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp, and McGee Brown, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 133
Pages: 120–121

Head Matter:
The State ex rel. Blanton, Appellant, v. Hany, Judge, Appellee.
[Cite as State ex rel. Blanton v. Hany, 133 Ohio St.3d 120, 2012-Ohio-4195.]
(No. 2012-0719
Submitted September 12, 2012
Decided September 18, 2012.)

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the request of appellant, Kyle W. Blanton, for a writ of mandamus. Blanton asked that appellee, Ottawa County Municipal Court Judge Frederick C. Hany II, be ordered to vacate his judgment dismissing a misdemeanor case against Blanton. The dismissal allowed the state to seek a felony indictment against him. Blanton also seeks a hearing to consider Blanton's "counterclaim" against dismissal. Blanton appealed the dismissal of the municipal court case. The appeal was dismissed but has been reinstated.
{¶ 2} Blanton had an adequate legal remedy by way of his reinstated appeal from the judgment dismissing his case. Mandamus will not issue when the relator has an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. R.C. 2731.05; see also State ex rel. Nickleson v. Mayberry, 131 Ohio St.3d 416, 2012-Ohio-1300, 965 N.E.2d 1000, ¶ 2; State v. Sweet, 72 Ohio St.3d 375, 376, 650 N.E.2d 450 (1995) (defendant could have raised on appeal the allegation that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise trial court's violation of Crim.R. 48(A) in dismissing indictments). Insofar as he additionally claims that Judge Hany failed to comply with Crim.R. 12(F) by failing to state his findings in determining the motion, this contention is "regularly addressed on appeal." State ex rel. Ross v. State, 102 Ohio St.3d 73, 2004-Ohio-1827, 806 N.E.2d 553, ¶ 5. And " 'even if these [alternate] remedies are no longer available to [defendant], he is not thereby entitled to an extraordinary writ.' " Id. at ¶ 6, quoting Jackson v. Wilson, 100 Ohio St.3d 315, 2003-Ohio-6112, 798 N.E.2d 1086, ¶ 9.
Kyle W. Blanton, pro se.
Mark E. Mulligan, Ottawa County Prosecuting Attorney, and Andrew M. Bigler, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Judgment affirmed.
O'Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp, and McGee Brown, JJ., concur.