From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tate v. Calabrese

Supreme Court of Ohio
Apr 7, 2010
925 N.E.2d 962 (Ohio 2010)

Opinion

No. 2009-2120.

Submitted March 31, 2010.

Decided April 7, 2010.

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 93741, 2009-Ohio-5389.

Eric Tate, pro se.

William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and James E. Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.


{¶ 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., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O'CONNOR, O'DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur.

The late Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer participated in the deliberations in, and the final resolution of, this case prior to his death.


Summaries of

Tate v. Calabrese

Supreme Court of Ohio
Apr 7, 2010
925 N.E.2d 962 (Ohio 2010)
Case details for

Tate v. Calabrese

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE EX REL. TATE, APPELLANT, v. CALABRESE, JUDGE, APPELLEE

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Apr 7, 2010

Citations

925 N.E.2d 962 (Ohio 2010)
925 N.E.2d 962
2010 Ohio 1431

Citing Cases

State ex Rel. Tate v. Calabrese

Reconsideration Of Prior Decisions. Reported at 125 Ohio St.3d 28, 2010-Ohio-1431, 925 N.E.2d 962. On motion…

Clutter v. Wiseman

As the court of appeals correctly concluded, res judicata thus barred Clutter from instituting a successive…