Opinion
Case No. 18CA15
03-08-2019
STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. SHANE L. GREEN Relator v. RICHARD WETZEL, JUDGE Respondent
APPEARANCES: For Relator SHANE L. GREEN PRO SE MCI# 578-590 Box 57 Marion, OH 43301 For Respondent CHARLES T. MCCONVILLE Knox County Prosecutor 117 E. High Street, Ste. 234 Mount Vernon, OH 43050
JUDGES: Hon. W. Scott Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. John W. Wise, J.
OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Mandamus JUDGMENT: Dismissed APPEARANCES: For Relator SHANE L. GREEN PRO SE
MCI# 578-590
Box 57
Marion, OH 43301 For Respondent CHARLES T. MCCONVILLE
Knox County Prosecutor
117 E. High Street, Ste. 234
Mount Vernon, OH 43050 Gwin, P.J.
{¶1} Relator Shane Green has filed a Complaint for Writ of Mandamus requesting this Court order a new sentencing hearing. He seeks to have this Court order the trial court to impose an indefinite sentence of life as well as properly impose post-release control. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
{¶2} To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, a relator must establish by clear and convincing evidence a clear legal right to the requested relief, a clear legal duty on the part of the respondent to grant that relief, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55, 2012-Ohio-69, 960 N.E.2d 452, ¶ 6, 13; State ex rel. Perry Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Husted, Secy., 2018-Ohio-3830.
{¶3} Relator previously raised both issues presented in this petition in Knox County Case Number 18-CA-03. This Court found the sentencing issue was barred by res judicata because Relator could have raised the issue on direct appeal. Further, we found the term of post-release control was properly imposed.
In that case, we noted, "Appellant makes two separate arguments in his appellate brief. First, he contends the trial court failed to state a term of post-release control as mandated by law and he was not properly notified of his post-release control. Second, he argues that the trial court erred when it did not impose an indefinite prison term under R.C. 2971.03(A)(3) and instead imposed a definite term of life imprisonment." State v. Green, 5th Dist. Knox No. 18-CA-3, 2018-Ohio-1493, ¶ 8.
{¶4} "[U]nder the doctrine of res judicata, an existing final judgment or decree binding the parties is conclusive as to all claims that were or could have been litigated in a first lawsuit. Grava, 73 Ohio St.3d at 381-382, 653 N.E.2d 226. Res judicata requires a plaintiff to present every ground for relief in the first action or be forever barred from asserting it. Id." State ex rel. Robinson v. Huron Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 143 Ohio St.3d 127, 2015-Ohio-1553, 34 N.E.3d 903, ¶ 8 (2015).
{¶5} Because Relator raised these issues in previous actions, he is barred by the doctrine of res judicata from re-litigating those issues in this case.
{¶6} Relator has failed to demonstrate he is entitled to the issuance of a writ of mandamus, therefore, the motion to dismiss is granted. By Gwin, P.J., Hoffman, J., and Wise, John, J., concur