State ex rel. Johnson v. Bettman - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

THE STATE EX REL. JOHNSON, APPELLANT, v. BETTMAN, JUDGE, APPELLEE.
[Cite as State ex rel. Johnson v. Bettman (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 61.]
Mandamus to compel common pleas court judge either to abrogate or redetermine
relator's sentence, since he had completed his minimum prison term --
Complaint dismissed, when.
(No. 98-1379 -- Submitted September 28, 1998 -- Decided December 2, 1998.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-980457.

In May 1998, appellant, Michael L. Johnson, filed a complaint in the Court
of Appeals for Hamilton County for a writ of mandamus to compel appellee,
Hamilton County Common Pleas Court Judge Gilbert Bettman, either to abrogate
or redetermine Johnson's sentence because he had completed his minimum prison
term. After Judge Bettman filed a motion to dismiss, the court of appeals granted
the motion and dismissed Johnson's complaint.

This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right.
__________________

Michael L. Johnson, pro se.
__________________

Per Curiam. Johnson asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing
his complaint because former R.C. 5145.01 and 5145.02 required Judge Bettman
to abrogate or redetermine his sentence following completion of his minimum
term. For the following reasons, however, Johnson's assertions lack merit.

First, neither former R.C. 5145.01 nor 5145.02 imposed any duty on Judge
Bettman to redetermine Johnson's sentence after he had allegedly completed his
minimum prison term. See State ex rel. Lanham v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.
(1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 425, 427, 687 N.E.2d 283, 284-285.

Second, Johnson did not allege his entitlement to the requested
extraordinary relief with sufficient particularity to withstand dismissal. State ex
rel. Fain v. Summit Cty. Adult Probation Dept. (1995), 71 Ohio St.3d 658, 659,
646 N.E.2d 1113, 1114.

Finally, to the extent that Johnson claims that he is entitled to release from
prison, habeas corpus, rather than mandamus, is the proper action. State ex rel.
Sampson v. Parrott (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 92, 694 N.E.2d 463.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Judgment affirmed.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.

2