Opinion
No. 2010-CA-00281.
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: March 7, 2011.
Writ of Mandamus.
Dismissed.
Bradley Elliott, Pro Se, Beci, for: Relator.
Kathleen O. Tatarsky, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Appellate Section, for: Respondent.
Before: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J. Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
OPINION
{¶ 1} Relator, Bradley Elliott, has filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus challenging the trial court's imposition of court costs without having considered Relator's ability to pay. Respondent has also filed an Answer as well as a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment.
{¶ 2} For a writ of mandamus to issue, the relator must have a clear legal right to the relief prayed for, the respondent must be under a clear legal duty to perform the requested act, and relator must have no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. State, ex rel. Berger, v. McMonagle (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 28, 6 OBR 50, 451 N.E.2d 225.
{¶ 3} We have previously held, the appropriate forum for challenging court costs is by way of appeal from the sentencing entry; therefore, an adequate remedy at law exists for making such a challenge. See State of Ohio ex rel. Biros v. Logan, 2003 WL 22326666, *2 (Ohio App. 11 Dist.) ([T]he propriety of a decision to impose court costs on a convicted defendant can only be contested in a direct appeal from the sentencing judgment.). See Wuescher v. Whitney 2008 WL 142575, 1 (Ohio App. 5 Dist.) and State ex rel. Bachman v. Heath, 2010 WL 320478, 2 (Ohio App. 5 Dist.).
{¶ 4} Other courts have similarly held, "[A defendant's] legal remedy to challenge the court's imposition of court costs [is] by direct appeal of his sentencing entry. Threatt, supra. See, also, State ex rel. Biros v. Logan, Trumbull App. No. 2003-T-0016, at ¶ 10 (finding that res judicata bars relator from collaterally attacking an order imposing court costs in a mandamus action). State v. Russell, 2011 WL 334184, 3 (Ohio App. 2 Dist.).
{¶ 5} Because Relator has or had an adequate remedy at law to challenge the imposition of court costs, a writ of mandamus does not lie. For this reason, we grant Respondent's motion to dismiss.
{¶ 6} RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED.
{¶ 7} PETITION DISMISSED.
{¶ 8} COSTS TO RELATOR.
{¶ 9} IT IS SO ORDERED.
Gwin, P.J., Edwards, J., and Delaney, J., concur
JUDGMENT ENTRY
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is granted, and the instant cause is dismissed. Costs to Relator.