State ex rel. Tate v. Calabrese

2010 Ohio 1431, 925 N.E.2d 962, 125 Ohio St. 3d 28
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedApril 7, 2010
Docket2009-2120
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 2010 Ohio 1431 (State ex rel. Tate v. Calabrese) 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
State ex rel. Tate v. Calabrese, 2010 Ohio 1431, 925 N.E.2d 962, 125 Ohio St. 3d 28 (Ohio 2010).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of appellant, Eric Tate, for a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Judge Deena Calabrese, to correct his sentence. Tate has already unsuccessfully sought correction of the same sentence by raising a similar claim for writs of mandamus and prohibition. See State ex rel. Tate v. Callahan, Cuyahoga App. No. 85615, 2005-Ohio-1202, 2005 WL 628520. Res judicata thus bars Tate from instituting a successive writ action. State ex rel. Essig v. Blackwell, 103 Ohio St.3d 481, 2004-Ohio-5586, 817 N.E.2d 5, ¶ 30; State ex rel. Carroll v. Corrigan (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 331, 332, 744 N.E.2d 771.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., 1 and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.

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

Related

State ex rel. Clutter v. Wiseman
2010 Ohio 4987 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2010)
State ex rel. Tate v. Calabrese
927 N.E.2d 1129 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2010 Ohio 1431, 925 N.E.2d 962, 125 Ohio St. 3d 28, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-tate-v-calabrese-ohio-2010.