COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                           NO. 75432
STATE OF OHIO, EX REL.        :    PETITION FOR WRIT OF
MARSHALL SOVA                 :    MANDAMUS
                              :
               Relator        :    MOTION NO. 370
                              :
          vs.                 :    JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
                              :
RICHARD J. MCMONAGLE, JUDGE   :
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS         :
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO         :
                              :
               Respondent     :
                              :
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION        :    NOVEMBER 19, 1998
JUDGMENT                      :    WRIT DISMISSED.
APPEARANCES:
For Relator                   :    MARSHALL SOVA, Pro Se
                                   No. 330-960
                                   Belmont Correctional Camp
                                   P. O. Box 540, W2
                                   St. Clairsville, Ohio 43950
For Respondent                :    STEPHANIE TUBBS-JONES
                                   Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
                                   Justice Center, Courts Tower
                                   1200 Ontario Street
                                   Cleveland, Ohio 44113
PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, A.J.:
                               -2-
     On October 26, 1998, the relator  filed a  motion to file  a
writ of mandamus.     In the underlying  case, State  of Ohio  v.
Marshall Sova, Cuyahoga  County Common Pleas  Court Case No.  CR-
340467, Mr. Sova was charged with a robbery committed before July
1, 1996. He was found guilty and sentenced in October 1996 to five
to fifteen years.  In July 1998, Mr. Sova moved the trial court to
sentence him pursuant  to the provisions of  S.B. 2 to receive  a
lesser sentence.  On August 11, 1998, the trial court denied  the
motion.   Mr. Sova  now endeavors to  obtain a  writ of  mandamus
against Judge Richard McMonagle to compel the judge to sentence him
pursuant to S.B. 2.  Sua sponte, for the following reasons,  this
court dismiss this  action.
     First, original actions for extraordinary relief, e.g., a writ
of mandamus, must be commenced by filing a complaint or  petition
rather than a motion.  Civ. R. 3(A) ( A civil action is commenced
by filing  a complaint with the  court ***. ) Loc.App.R.  8(B)(1)
( These original actions shall  be instituted by the filing of  a
verified complaint***. )  Thus, the filing of a motion is fatally
inappropriate. State ex rel. Simms v. Sutula (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d
110, 689 N.E.2d 564.
     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.
State ex rel. Ney v. Niehaus (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 118, 515 N.E.2d
914.  Mandamus  is not a  substitute for appeal.   State ex  rel.
                               -3-
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.  Furthermore, if the relator had an adequate remedy,
regardless of whether it was used, relief in mandamus is precluded.
State ex rel. Tran v. McGrath (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 45, 676 N.E.2d
108 and State ex rel. Boardwalk Shopping Center, Inc. v. Court of
Appeals for Cuyahoga County (1990), 56 Ohio St.3d 33, 564  N.E.2d
86.
     In the present case Mr. Sova cannot establish the requisites
for mandamus.  Appeal of the denial of his motion to resentence is
or was  an adequate remedy at  law which now precludes  mandamus.
Moreover, Mr. Sova has no right to be sentenced under S.B. 2.  The
Ohio Supreme  Court in State  v. Rush (1998),  53 Ohio St.3d  53,
Paragraph Two of the Syllabus,  held that S.B. 2 applies only  to
those offenses committed after July 1, 1996.
     Accordingly, this  writ action  is dismissed.  Costs assessed
against relator.
JAMES M. PORTER, J., CONCURS.
                              PATRICIA A. BLACKMON,
                              ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
.