State ex rel. Nickleson v. Mayberry
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Ohio?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Ohio. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Appellant Roland Nickleson filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus to compel Appellee, the county court of common pleas judge, to issue a final, appealable order in his criminal case. The court of appeals dismissed the complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) notwithstanding Nickleson's claims, his sentencing entry was a final, appealable order because it contained a full resolution of all the counts of his indictment for which there were convictions; and (2) Nickleson had an adequate remedy by appeal from his sentencing entry to raise his other claims contesting the validity of the indictment, the propriety of the jury instructions, and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions.
Download PDF
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Nickleson v. Mayberry, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-1300.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published. SLIP OPINION NO. 2012-OHIO-1300 STATE EX REL. NICKLESON, APPELLANT, v. MAYBERRY, JUDGE, APPELLEE. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Nickleson v. Mayberry, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-1300.] Court of appeals judgment dismissing complaint for writ of mandamus affirmed. (No. 2011-1780 Submitted March 21, 2012 Decided March 29, 2012.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Wood County, No. WD-11-039, 2011-Ohio-4494. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} We affirm the court of appeals judgment dismissing the complaint of appellant, Roland Nickleson, for a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, Wood County Court of Common Pleas Judge Alan Mayberry, to issue a final, appealable order in his criminal case. Notwithstanding Nickleson s claims, his sentencing entry was a final, appealable order because it contained a full resolution of all the counts of his indictment for which there were convictions. State ex rel. Davis v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 127 Ohio St.3d 29, SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 2010-Ohio-4728, 936 N.E.2d 41, ¶ 2; State ex rel. Rose v. McGinty, 128 Ohio St.3d 371, 2011-Ohio-761, 944 N.E.2d 672, ¶ 2-3. {¶ 2} Moreover, Nickleson has or had an adequate remedy by appeal from his sentencing entry to raise his other claims contesting the validity of the indictment, the propriety of the jury instructions, and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. State ex rel. Simpson v. Cooper, 120 Ohio St.3d 297, 2008-Ohio-6110, 898 N.E.2d 936, ¶ 6 (mandamus petitioner had adequate remedy at law by direct appeal to raise his challenge to the validity or sufficiency of his indictment); Smith v. Mitchell, 80 Ohio St.3d 624, 625, 687 N.E.2d 749 (1998) (habeas corpus petitioner had adequate remedy at law by direct appeal to raise his claim of erroneous jury instructions); Webber v. Kelly, 120 Ohio St.3d 440, 2008-Ohio-6695, 900 N.E.2d 175, ¶ 7-9 (habeas corpus petitioner had adequate remedy at law by direct appeal to raise his claim concerning the sufficiency of the evidence); State ex rel. Voleck v. Powhatan Point, 127 Ohio St.3d 299, 2010-Ohio-5679, 939 N.E.2d 819, ¶ 7 ( Mandamus will not issue when the relators have an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law ); R.C. 2731.05. {¶ 3} Finally, we deny appellant s S.Ct.Prac.R. 6.7(B) request to accept his statement of facts and issues as correct and reverse the judgment, because his brief does not reasonably appear to sustain reversal. Judgment affirmed. O CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O DONNELL, LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. __________________ Roland Nickleson, pro se. ______________________ 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.
