Opinion

State ex rel. Tucker v. Forchione

  • 128 Ohio St. 3d 298
  • 2010 Ohio 6291
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Dec 28, 2010
Status
Published
On the bench
Brown, Pfeifer, Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell, Cupp, Lanzinger
Cited by
7 cases
Authority
More cited than 79.8%

The opinion

[Cite as State ex rel. Tucker v. Forchione, 128 Ohio St.3d 298, 2010-Ohio-6291.]

THE STATE EX REL. TUCKER, APPELLANT, v. FORCHIONE, JUDGE, APPELLEE.

[Cite as State ex rel. Tucker v. Forchione,

128 Ohio St.3d 298, 2010-Ohio-6291.]

Mandamus — Sentencing — Petitioner had adequate remedy at law by way of

direct appeal to raise claim that he did not receive proper notification of

postrelease control — Sentencing entry contained sufficient language to

provide such notice — Writ denied.

(No. 2010-0479 — Submitted August 10, 2010 — Decided December 28, 2010.)

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Stark County,

No. 2009CA00240, 2010-Ohio-530.

__________________

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the

petition for a writ of mandamus of appellant, Eric Tucker. Tucker “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; Patterson v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 120 Ohio St.3d 311, 2008-Ohio-6147,

898 N.E.2d 950, ¶ 8. And Tucker’s February 1, 1999 sentencing entry

“sufficiently included language that postrelease control was part of his sentence

so as to afford him sufficient notice to raise any claimed errors on appeal rather

than by extraordinary writ.” State ex rel. Pruitt v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of

Common Pleas, 125 Ohio St.3d 402, 2010-Ohio-1808, 928 N.E.2d 722, ¶ 4;

Watkins v. Collins, 111 Ohio St.3d 425, 2006-Ohio-5082, 857 N.E.2d 78, ¶ 51-53.

Tucker’s sentencing entry constituted a final, appealable order, and he had an

adequate remedy by way of appeal to raise his claims. Pruitt at ¶ 3.

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Judgment affirmed.

BROWN, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR,

O’DONNELL, and CUPP, JJ., concur.

LANZINGER, J., dissents.

__________________

Eric Tucker, pro se.

John D. Ferrero, Stark County Prosecuting Attorney, and Ronald Mark

Caldwell, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

______________________

2

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.