[Cite as State v. Wetzel, 2019-Ohio-826.]
COURT OF APPEALS
KNOX COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JUDGES:
STATE OF OHIO, : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
EX REL. SHANE L. GREEN : Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
: Hon. John W. Wise, J.
Relator :
:
-vs- : Case No. 18CA15
:
RICHARD WETZEL, JUDGE :
: OPINION
Respondent
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Mandamus
JUDGMENT: Dismissed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: March 8, 2019
APPEARANCES:
For Relator For Respondent
SHANE L. GREEN PRO SE CHARLES T. MCCONVILLE
MCI# 578-590 Knox County Prosecutor
Box 57 117 E. High Street, Ste. 234
Marion, OH 43301 Mount Vernon, OH 43050
[Cite as State v. Wetzel, 2019-Ohio-826.]
Gwin, P.J.
{¶1} Relator Shane Green has filed a Complaint for Writ of Mandamus
requesting this Court order a new sentencing hearing. He seeks to have this Court order
the trial court to impose an indefinite sentence of life as well as properly impose post-
release control. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.
{¶2} To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, a relator must establish by clear and
convincing evidence a clear legal right to the requested relief, a clear legal duty on the
part of the respondent to grant that relief, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55, 2012-Ohio-
69, 960 N.E.2d 452, ¶ 6, 13; State ex rel. Perry Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Husted, Secy.,
2018-Ohio-3830.
{¶3} Relator previously raised both issues presented in this petition in Knox
County Case Number 18-CA-03.1 This Court found the sentencing issue was barred by
res judicata because Relator could have raised the issue on direct appeal. Further, we
found the term of post-release control was properly imposed.
{¶4} “[U]nder the doctrine of res judicata, an existing final judgment or decree
binding the parties is conclusive as to all claims that were or could have been litigated in
a first lawsuit. Grava, 73 Ohio St.3d at 381–382, 653 N.E.2d 226. Res judicata requires
1
In that case, we noted, “Appellant makes two separate arguments in his appellate brief.
First, he contends the trial court failed to state a term of post-release control as mandated
by law and he was not properly notified of his post-release control. Second, he argues
that the trial court erred when it did not impose an indefinite prison term under R.C.
2971.03(A)(3) and instead imposed a definite term of life imprisonment.” State v. Green,
5th Dist. Knox No. 18-CA-3, 2018-Ohio-1493, ¶ 8.
Knox County, Case No. 18CA15 3
a plaintiff to present every ground for relief in the first action or be forever barred from
asserting it. Id.” State ex rel. Robinson v. Huron Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 143 Ohio
St.3d 127, 2015–Ohio–1553, 34 N.E.3d 903, ¶ 8 (2015).
{¶5} Because Relator raised these issues in previous actions, he is barred by
the doctrine of res judicata from re-litigating those issues in this case.
{¶6} Relator has failed to demonstrate he is entitled to the issuance of a writ of
mandamus, therefore, the motion to dismiss is granted.
By Gwin, P.J.,
Hoffman, J., and
Wise, John, J., concur