State ex rel. Corrigan v. Lawther
This text of 529 N.E.2d 1377 (State ex rel. Corrigan v. Lawther) 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.
Opinion
Appellant argues that, because he sought leave to appeal the suspension of sentence under R.C. 2945.67, and leave was denied, he had no further remedy at law.
However, appellant could have appealed the denial of leave to appeal to this court. R.C. 2953.14 allows the state to seek review of an adverse judgment of a court of appeals:
“Whenever a court .superior to the trial court renders judgment adverse to the state in a criminal action or proceeding, the state * * * may institute an appeal to reverse such judgment in the next higher court. * * *”
Because appellant could have appealed under R.C. 2953.14, he had an adequate remedy at law. See State, ex rel. Zoller, v. Talbert (1980), 62 Ohio St. 2d 329, 16 O.O. 3d 391, 405 N.E. 2d 724; State, ex rel. Leis, v. Outcalt (1980), 62 Ohio St. 2d 331, 16 O.O. 3d 392, 405 N.E. 2d 725 (appeal is adequate remedy for claimed error in sentencing).
Mandamus does not lie herein and the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
529 N.E.2d 1377, 39 Ohio St. 3d 157, 1988 Ohio LEXIS 330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-corrigan-v-lawther-ohio-1988.