State ex rel. Fears v. Myers
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Fears v. Myers, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-1939.] 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. 2014-OHIO-1939 THE STATE EX REL. FEARS, APPELLANT, v. MYERS, JUDGE, APPELLEE. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Fears v. Myers, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-1939.] Mandamus Petition seeking new sentencing hearing Relator has adequate remedy at law by appeal or postconviction relief Judgment affirmed and writ denied. (No. 2013-1492 Submitted April 30, 2014 Decided May 15, 2014.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-130461. ____________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} William Fears appeals the First District Court of Appeals dismissal of his complaint for a writ of mandamus. Fears sought a writ compelling the trial court to grant him a new sentencing hearing. For the following reasons, the court of appeals properly dismissed Fears s complaint, and we affirm. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 2} Fears had adequate remedies at law by appeal or postconviction relief to review his claimed sentencing error. State ex rel. Sampson v. Parrott, 82 Ohio St.3d 92, 93, 694 N.E.2d 463 (1998), citing State ex rel. Massie v. Rogers, 77 Ohio St.3d 449, 450, 674 N.E.2d 1383 (1997). Moreover, the fact that Fears has already invoked some of these alternate remedies to raise his claim of sentencing error does not entitle him to extraordinary relief in mandamus. Sampson at 93, citing State ex rel. Tran v. McGrath, 78 Ohio St.3d 45, 47, 676 N.E.2d 108 (1997). {¶ 3} Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. Judgment affirmed. O CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, FRENCH, and O NEILL, JJ., concur. ____________________ William Fears, 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.
