State ex rel. Love v. O'Donnell

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[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. MICHAEL K. LOVE, : PER CURIAM OPINION : 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. 13AP911, 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.