" But " ‘[a] claim of improper assignment of a judge can generally be adequately raised by way of appeal.’ " State ex rel. Black v. Forchione , 144 Ohio St.3d 149, 2015-Ohio-4336, 41 N.E.3d 414, ¶ 4, quoting State ex rel. Key v. Spicer , 91 Ohio St.3d 469, 746 N.E.2d 1119 (2001). Payne is therefore not entitled to an extraordinary writ to challenge Judge Reinbold's jurisdiction.
We do not reach these arguments, because, regardless, Sevayega is not entitled to a writ of mandamus. {¶ 14} The facts of this case are similar to those in State ex rel. Black v. Forchione, 144 Ohio St.3d 149, 2015-Ohio-4336, 41 N.E.3d 414. Black was convicted of a sex offense after a trial presided over by Judge Haas. After his release, Black failed to notify the sheriff of a change of residential address, as required by R.C. 2950.05(A).
"To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, [a petitioner] must establish a clear legal right to the requested relief, a clear legal duty on the part of [the respondent] to provide it, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law." State ex rel. Black v. Forchione, 144 Ohio St.3d 149, 2015-Ohio-4336, 41 N.E.3d 414, ¶ 3. Here, Hill's petition fails on all fronts.
Indeed, Cole was an appeal from such a hearing. Furthermore, in State ex rel. Black v. Forchione, 144 Ohio St.3d 149, 2015-Ohio-4336, 41 N.E.3d 414, ¶ 4, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled: "'[A] claim of improper assignment of a judge can generally be adequately raised by way of appeal.' State ex rel. Key v. Spicer, 91 Ohio St.3d 469, 469, 746 N.E.2d 1119 (2001), citing Berger v. McMonagle, 6 Ohio St.3d 28, 30, 451 N.E.2d 225 (1983) (petitions for mandamus and prohibition cannot be used as substitutes for an appeal to contest alleged improper assignment of judge).