COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                           NO.  73606
STATE OF OHIO, ex rel.        :
ROBERT ADAMS                  :
                              :    PETITION FOR WRIT OF
     Relator                  :    MANDAMUS
                              :
     vs.                      :    MOTION NO. 89570
                              :
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS         :    JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO         :
                              :
     Respondent               :
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT
OF DECISION                   :    DECEMBER 18, 1997
JUDGMENT                      :    WRIT DISMISSED.
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION        :
APPEARANCES:
For relator       :           ROBERT ADAMS, pro se
                              #284-045
                              Belmont Correctional Institution
                              Post Office Box 540
                              St. Clairsville, Ohio  43950
For respondent    :           STEPHANIE TUBBS-JONES
                              Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
                              Justice Center, Courts Tower
                              1200 Ontario Street
                              Cleveland, Ohio  44113
                               -2-
JAMES D. SWEENEY, C.J.:
     On December 1, 1997, the relator, Robert Adams, commenced this
mandamus action against the respondent, the Cuyahoga County Court
of Common  Pleas,  to compel  the  respondent to  resentence  him
pursuant to Senate Bill 2.  Sua sponte, for the following reasons,
this court dismisses this mandamus action.
     In 1993, Mr. Adams was convicted for various drug offenses and
sentenced to two to ten years in the underlying case, State of Ohio
v. Roberts Adams, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Case No. CR-
299923. In July 1996, he moved the respondent to vacate or modify
his sentence to conform with the new sentencing scheme in  Senate
Bill  2.    On   August  5,  1996,  the  respondent  denied   the
postconviction petition because the new law explicitly  prohibits
retroactive application. Mr. Adams then filed this  Motion to File
a Writ of Mandamus and requests this court to resentence or modify
his sentence to conform with Senate Bill 2.
     Mandamus is the wrong remedy and, thus, this application  is
dismissed. The requisites for mandamus are well established:  (1)
the relator must have a clear legal right to the requested relief;
(2) the respondent  must have a clear  legal duty to perform  the
requested relief; and (3) there must be no adequate remedy at law.
Additionally, although mandamus may be used to compel a court  to
exercise judgment or to discharge a function, it may not  control
judicial discretion, even if  that discretion is grossly  abused.
State ex rel. Ney v. Niehaus (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 118, 515 N.E.2d
                               -3-
914. Furthermore, mandamus is not a substitute for appeal.  State
ex rel. Keenan v. Calabrese (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 176, 631 N.E.2d
119; State ex rel. Daggett v. Gessman (1973), 34 Ohio St.2d 55, 295
N.E.2d 659; and State ex rel. Pressley v. Industrial Commission of
Ohio (1967), 11 Ohio St.2d 141, 228 N.E.2d 631, Paragraph Three of
the Syllabus.
     In the present case, the respondent completely fulfilled its
duty by denying the postconviction petition.  It concisely issued
findings of fact and conclusions of law.  State ex rel. Carrion v.
Harris (1988),  40 Ohio  St.3d 19, 530  N.E.2d 1330.   Any  issue
concerning the merits of the decision should have been addressed on
appeal. Additionally, Mr. Adams improperly captioned his pleading
as a motion to file a writ of mandamus.
     Accordingly, this mandamus action is dismissed.  Relator  to
pay costs.
PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, J., CONCURS
                               JAMES D. SWEENEY, CHIEF JUSTICE
.