State ex rel. Thomas v. DeWine

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Thomas v. DeWine

2010 Ohio 4984, 938 N.E.2d 328, 127 Ohio St. 3d 214

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 19, 2010

Docket2010-1241

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 2010 Ohio 4984 (State ex rel. Thomas v. DeWine) 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. Thomas v. DeWine, 2010 Ohio 4984, 938 N.E.2d 328, 127 Ohio St. 3d 214 (Ohio 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment dismissing the petition of appellant, Ako Thomas, for a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Judge Patrick DeWine, to resentence him in order to provide him oral notification at his sentencing hearing of his mandatory five-year postreleasecontrol term. Thomas “had an adequate remedy by way of direct appeal from his sentence to raise his claim that he did not receive proper notification about postrelease control at his sentencing hearing.” Briseno v. Cook, 121 Ohio St.3d 38, 2009-Ohio-308, 901 N.E.2d 798, ¶ 1.

Judgment affirmed.

Brown, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, and Cupp, JJ., concur. Lanzinger, J., concurs in judgment only.

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, Ako Thomas, for a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Judge Patrick DeWine, to resentence him in order to provide him oral notification at his sentencing hearing of his mandatory five-year postreleasecontrol term. Thomas “had an adequate remedy by way of direct appeal from his sentence to raise his claim that he did not receive proper notification about postrelease control at his sentencing hearing.” Briseno v. Cook, 121 Ohio St.3d 38, 2009-Ohio-308, 901 N.E.2d 798, ¶ 1.

Judgment affirmed.

Brown, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, and Cupp, JJ., concur. Lanzinger, J., concurs in judgment only.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2010 Ohio 4984, 938 N.E.2d 328, 127 Ohio St. 3d 214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-thomas-v-dewine-ohio-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack