COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 74873 STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. : PETITION FOR WRIT OF JERRY RANZY : MANDAMUS : Relator : MOTION NO. 98773 : vs. : JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION : BETTY MITCHELL, ET AL. : : Respondents : : DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : OCTOBER 1, 1998 JUDGMENT : WRIT DISMISSED. APPEARANCES: For Relator : JERRY RANZY, Pro Se No. A192-716 Mansfield Correctional Inst. P. O. Box 788 Mansfield, Ohio 44901 For Respondent : BETTY D. MONGOMERY, Attorney General BASIL J. MUSNUFF, Assistant Attorney General Corrections Litigation Section State Office Bldg., 12th Floor 615 West Superior Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1899 PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, A.J.: Relator avers that he has been convicted and sentenced to -2- various terms of incarceration arising out of several criminal prosecutions since 1973. He was declared a parole violator in 1995. Relator further avers that he remains incarcerated because the records of respondent Mansfield Correctional Institution records office and the Ohio Adult Parole Authority inaccurately reflect his sentence. Relator claims that respondents--warden and records office--are incorrectly applying former R.C. 2929.41(B)(3) which required a consecutive sentence [w]hen it is imposed for a new felony committed by a probationer, parolee, or escapee. Relator requests that this court issue a writ of mandamus ordering and directing [respondents] to provide Relator with his requests to have his sentences comply with the law as it existed when he was sentenced on May 4, 1973, which would make his maximum sentence expired. Complaint, at 4. Respondents have filed a motion to dismiss. Respondents argue that relator is requesting that this court order his release from prison. As a consequence, respondents contend that relator may not maintain this action in mandamus because habeas corpus, rather than mandamus, is the proper action for persons claiming entitlement to immediate release from prison. State ex rel. Finfrock v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1998), 80 Ohio St.3d 639, 640, 687 N.E.2d 761 (citations deleted). Relator argues that he is requesting a correction of records only. Respondents' motion to dismiss is well-taken. A court could determine that the records maintained by respondents are in error only by reviewing the propriety of relator's continuing -3- incarceration. As noted above, however, it is well-settled that challenges to continued incarceration must be made in an action in habeas corpus. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has held that prisoners' claims in mandamus for correction of their records based on the former statutes governing good-time credit and risk assessment/aggregate scoresheets were meritless. See State ex rel. Lanham v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 425, 427, 687 N.E.2d 283. Relator has not set forth any authority for the proposition that mandamus lies to compel a warden or an institution to change its records regarding incarceration. We also note that venue is not proper because respondent's principal office is not located in Cuyahoga County. State ex rel. Sullivan v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (Oct. 31, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 71477, unreported (action in mandamus dismissed sua sponte). See also State ex rel. McCool v. Adult Parole Auth. (Mar. 5, 1998), Cuyahoga App. No. 73487, unreported (action in mandamus dismissed sua sponte). Accordingly, the respondent's motion to dismiss is granted. Relator to pay costs. Writ dismissed. JAMES M. PORTER, J., CONCURS. .