COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                           NO. 77265
STATE OF OHIO, EX REL.        :    PETITION FOR WRIT OF
JEFFREY T. BORDEN             :    MANDAMUS
                              :
               Relator        :    MOTION NO. 16748
                              :
          vs.                 :    JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
                              :
JOSE VILLANUEVA, JUDGE        :
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS         :
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO         :
                              :
               Respondent     :
                              :
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION   :    MAY 4, 2000
JUDGMENT                 :    WRIT DISMISSED.
APPEARANCES:
For Relator              :    JEFFREY T. BORDEN, Pro Se
                              Cuyahoga County Jail
                              P. O. Box 5600
                              Cleveland, Ohio 44113
For Respondent           :    WILLIAM D. MASON,
                                Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
                              DIANE SMILANICK, Assistant
                              Justice Center, Courts Tower
                              1200 Ontario Street
                              Cleveland, Ohio 44113
ANN DYKE, A.J.:
     Relator requests that this court compel respondent judge  to
reconsider the denial of various motion relator filed in State v.
                               -2-
Borden, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-378478.
     Respondent has  filed an   answer  to petition  for writ  of
mandamus and motion for summary judgment.   Initially, we note that
Civ.R.  7 distinguishes  between  pleadings, e.g.,  answers,  and
motions.
     Respondent correctly  argues that mandamus  does not lie  to
compel respondent to reconsider the denial of pretrial motions in
Case No. 378478.
     [A]lthough 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 914.  Furthermore, mandamus is
     not a substitute for appeal or a means to review errors
     or irregularities, if any, in the trial court.  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. Errors, if any, regarding sentencing or denial
     of motions are reviewable on appeal.
State ex  rel. Lesko v.  Court of Common  Pleas (Apr. 15,  1999),
Cuyahoga App. No. 76165, unreported, at 4-5.  See also R.C. 2731.03
     Respondent discharged his duty by denying relator's motions.
Relief does not lie in mandamus to compel respondent to rule in the
manner relator considers favorable.
     Accordingly, respondent's motion for summary judgment, which
is unopposed, is granted.  Relator to pay costs.
     Writ denied.
TERRENCE O'DONNELL, J., CONCURS.
                              ANN DYKE, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
.