State ex rel. Love v. O'Donnell ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as State ex rel. Love v. O'Donnell, 2016-Ohio-3007.]
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
    ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    LAKE COUNTY, OHIO
    STATE OF OHIO ex rel.                                    :   PER CURIAM OPINION
    MICHAEL K. LOVE,
    :
    Relator,
    :   CASE NO. 2015-L-143
    - vs -
    :
    JUDGE JOHN O’DONNELL,
    :
    Respondent.
    Original Action for Writ of Mandamus.
    Judgment: Petition dismissed.
    Michael K. Love, pro se, PID: A368-723, Grafton Correctional Institution, 2500 South
    Avon Belden Road, Grafton, OH 44044 (Relator).
    Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecutor, and Eric A. Condon, Assistant
    Prosecutor, Lake County Administration Building, 105 Main Street, P.O. Box 490,
    Painesville, OH 44077 (For Respondent).
    PER CURIAM.
    {¶1}     Relator, Michael K. Love, petitions this court to issue its writ of mandamus,
    requiring respondent, the Hon. John O’Donnell, Judge of the Lake County Court of
    Common Pleas, to issue a new judgment entry of sentence. Respondent has moved to
    dismiss. Relator is presently serving 15 years to life imprisonment for felony murder.
    State v. Love, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2011-L-159, 2012-Ohio-3029, ¶3. Relator insists the
    original judgment entry of sentence in his case did not contain the elements necessary
    to constitute a proper judgment entry, and that it never was a final appealable order.
    Relator did not raise this issue on his initial, direct appeal. See, e.g., State v. Love, 11th
    Dist. Lake No. 99-L-051, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 2147 (May 11, 2001).
    {¶2}   Mandamus will not lie when the relator has (or had) an adequate remedy
    at law. State ex rel. Turner v. Dept. of Rehab. and Corr., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 13AP-
    911, 2014-Ohio-2789, ¶19. Mandamus is not a substitute for direct appeal. 
    Id. at ¶21.
    This court has already determined that relator could, and should, have raised this issue
    on his direct appeal, and the matter is now res judicata. Love, 2012-Ohio-3029, ¶12-25.
    {¶3}   Relator’s motion for summary judgment, related to the writ of mandamus,
    is also denied.
    {¶4}   Respondent’s motion to dismiss is granted.
    TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J., THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J., COLLEEN MARY, O’TOOLE, J.,
    concur.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2015-L-143

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 5/16/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 5/16/2016