From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tucker v. Forchione

Supreme Court of Ohio
Dec 28, 2010
128 Ohio St. 3d 298 (Ohio 2010)

Summary

In State ex rel. Tucker v. Forchione, 128 Ohio St.3d 298, 2010-Ohio-6291, 943 N.E.2d 1006, ¶ 1, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled that because Tucker's February 1999 sentencing entry "included language that postrelease control was part of his sentence so as to afford him notice to raise any claimed error on appeal rather than by extraordinary writ," Tucker was not entitled to mandamus relief to correct postrelease control sentencing errors. Rather, he had an adequate remedy at law through appeal.

Summary of this case from State ex Rel. Jones v. Friedman

Opinion

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.

Eric Tucker, pro se.

John D. Ferrero, Stark County Prosecuting Attorney, and Ronald Mark Caldwell, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.


{¶ 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, 111; 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.

Judgment affirmed.

BROWN, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O'CONNOR, O'DONNELL, and CUPP, JJ., concur.

LANZINGER, J., dissents.


Summaries of

Tucker v. Forchione

Supreme Court of Ohio
Dec 28, 2010
128 Ohio St. 3d 298 (Ohio 2010)

In State ex rel. Tucker v. Forchione, 128 Ohio St.3d 298, 2010-Ohio-6291, 943 N.E.2d 1006, ¶ 1, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled that because Tucker's February 1999 sentencing entry "included language that postrelease control was part of his sentence so as to afford him notice to raise any claimed error on appeal rather than by extraordinary writ," Tucker was not entitled to mandamus relief to correct postrelease control sentencing errors. Rather, he had an adequate remedy at law through appeal.

Summary of this case from State ex Rel. Jones v. Friedman
Case details for

Tucker v. Forchione

Case Details

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

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Dec 28, 2010

Citations

128 Ohio St. 3d 298 (Ohio 2010)
2010 Ohio 6291

Citing Cases

The State ex Rel. Richardson v. Suster

{¶ 2} Richardson's sentencing entry “ ‘sufficiently included language that postrelease control was part of…

The State ex Rel. Paige v. Corrigan

Paige also had an adequate remedy by appeal to raise his claims that his March 2004 sentencing entry…