State Ex Rel. Anello v. Weigand, 2008ca00205 (11-24-2008)
Opinion
{¶ 2} To be entitled to the issuance of a writ of mandamus, relator must demonstrate: (1) a clear legal right to the relief prayed for; (2) a clear legal duty on the respondent's part to perform the act; and, (3) that there exists no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel. Master v. Cleveland (1996),
{¶ 3} Relator filed a motion with the trial court captioned "Motion for Relief from Judgment" premised upon on Civ. R. 60(B).
{¶ 4} "A request for relief pursuant to Civil Rule 60(B) is really a motion for post-conviction relief regardless of its caption." State v.Brenton, 3rd Dist. No. 11-06-06,
{¶ 5} Because Relator has filed what is actually a motion for post-conviction relief, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to consider the motion. Consequently, there is no clear legal duty on the part of Respondent to perform the requested act. *Page 3
{¶ 6} Relator has failed to demonstrate the elements necessary to warrant the issuance of the writ of mandamus.
{¶ 7} WRIT DENIED.
{¶ 8} COSTS TO RELATOR.
Wise, P.J. Edwards, J. and Delaney, J. concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2008 Ohio 6118 (State Ex Rel. Anello v. Weigand, 2008ca00205 (11-24-2008)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.