Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the denial of Melborn Cornwall’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to vacate a sentence imposed for violating postrelease control. The court held that Cornwall had adequate remedies through an ordinary appeal and therefore could not obtain mandamus relief. The court declined to reach the underlying issue of whether prior sentencing required notice of the potential consequences under Ohio Revised Code 2929.141(A).
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Cornwall was entitled to a writ of mandamus to vacate his sentence for violating postrelease control when he had not appealed the sentence or the denial of his motion to correct or vacate it.
- Whether the failure to advise Cornwall at his original sentencing of the potential consequences under R.C. 2929.141(A) deprived the trial court of authority to impose the later postrelease-control-violation sentence.
Holdings
- A writ of mandamus is unavailable because Cornwall had adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law through appeals from the sentence and related rulings.
Key quotations
“An appeal is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law that precludes an action for mandamus or procedendo” (¶ 12)
Factual background
Cornwall was sentenced in 2011 after pleading guilty to gross sexual imposition, with five years of mandatory postrelease control imposed. In 2014, after pleading guilty to an attempted failure-to-notify offense committed while on postrelease control, he received a one-year prison term plus a consecutive two-and-a-half-year term for the remaining postrelease-control period. He alleged that he had not been warned at his earlier sentencing that a new felony could result in an additional prison term under R.C. 2929.141(A), and sought to terminate the later sentence.
Procedural history
Cornwall pleaded guilty to gross sexual imposition in 2011 and received a prison sentence and mandatory postrelease control. After later pleading guilty to an attempted failure-to-notify offense, he received a consecutive sentence for the remaining period of postrelease control. He did not appeal that sentence, instead filing a motion to correct or vacate the sentence; after the trial court denied the motion, he filed a mandamus action. The Eighth District granted Judge Sutula's motion for summary judgment, and the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed on the ground that Cornwall had adequate remedies by appeal.