Lenard v. Russo

Ohio Supreme Court

Lenard v. Russo

2012 Ohio 4236, 976 N.E.2d 890, 133 Ohio St. 3d 152

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 20, 2012

Docket2012-0967

StatusPublished

This text of 2012 Ohio 4236 (Lenard v. Russo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lenard v. Russo, 2012 Ohio 4236, 976 N.E.2d 890, 133 Ohio St. 3d 152 (Ohio 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment dismissing the petition of appellant, Richard Lenard, for a writ of prohibition to compel appellee, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Judge John J. Russo, to vacate his conviction and sentence for violating a temporary protection order. Judge Russo did not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction to convict and sentence Lenard because the court had jurisdiction over the criminal proceeding, including sentencing, see R.C. 2931.03, and Lenard’s plea of guilty to the charge of violating a temporary protection order constituted a complete admission of the charge, Shie v. Leonard, 84 Ohio St.3d 160, 161, 702 N.E.2d 419 (1998), and Crim.R. 11(B)(1). Lenard had an adequate remedy by appeal from his sentencing entry to raise his claim of sentencing error. State ex rel. Hudson v. Sutula, 131 Ohio St.3d 177, 2012-Ohio-554, 962 N.E.2d 798, ¶ 1; State ex rel. Pruitt v. Donnelly, 129 Ohio St.3d 498, 2011-Ohio-4203, 954 N.E.2d 117, ¶ 2.

Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp, and McGee Brown, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment dismissing the petition of appellant, Richard Lenard, for a writ of prohibition to compel appellee, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Judge John J. Russo, to vacate his conviction and sentence for violating a temporary protection order. Judge Russo did not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction to convict and sentence Lenard because the court had jurisdiction over the criminal proceeding, including sentencing, see R.C. 2931.03, and Lenard’s plea of guilty to the charge of violating a temporary protection order constituted a complete admission of the charge, Shie v. Leonard, 84 Ohio St.3d 160, 161, 702 N.E.2d 419 (1998), and Crim.R. 11(B)(1). Lenard had an adequate remedy by appeal from his sentencing entry to raise his claim of sentencing error. State ex rel. Hudson v. Sutula, 131 Ohio St.3d 177, 2012-Ohio-554, 962 N.E.2d 798, ¶ 1; State ex rel. Pruitt v. Donnelly, 129 Ohio St.3d 498, 2011-Ohio-4203, 954 N.E.2d 117, ¶ 2.

Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp, and McGee Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2012 Ohio 4236, 976 N.E.2d 890, 133 Ohio St. 3d 152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lenard-v-russo-ohio-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack