ResetAA Font size: Print

Supreme Court of Ohio.

The STATE ex rel. AGOSTO, Appellant, v. GALLAGHER, Judge, Appellee.

No. 2011–1604.

    Decided: February 16, 2012

Jose Agosto Jr., pro se. William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and James E. Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees.

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the claims of appellant, Jose Agosto Jr., for writs of mandamus and procedendo to compel appellees, Judge Hollie L. Gallagher and the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, to resentence him to a lawful sentence that constitutes a valid final judgment.

{¶ 2} Agosto has already unsuccessfully sought resentencing by raising a similar claim for writs of mandamus and procedendo. State ex rel. Agosto v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 119 Ohio St.3d 366, 2008–Ohio–4607, 894 N.E.2d 314. The court of appeals correctly concluded that res judicata bars Agosto from instituting a successive writ action for the same relief. State ex rel. Clutter v. Wiseman, 127 Ohio St.3d 214, 2010–Ohio–4987, 938 N.E.2d 328.

{¶ 3} Moreover, Agosto's allied-offense claims are nonjurisdictional and are not cognizable in an extraordinary-writ action. See Smith v. Voorhies, 119 Ohio St.3d 345, 2008–Ohio–4479, 894 N.E.2d 44, ¶ 10 (habeas corpus). Agosto had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law to raise his claims in an appeal from his sentencing entry.

{¶ 4} Finally, Agosto's 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; State ex rel. Castro v. Corrigan, 129 Ohio St.3d 342, 2011–Ohio–4059, 952 N.E.2d 497, ¶ 3.

Judgment affirmed.


FindLaw Career Center

    Select a Job Title

      Post a Job  |  Careers Home

    View More