COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                            NO. 79193
STATE OF OHIO EX REL.         :
ALEXANDER HALL,               :
                              :    PETITION FOR WRIT OF
          Relator             :    MANDAMUS
                              :
     -vs-                     :    JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
                              :
JUDGE NANCY M. RUSSO,         :    MOTION NO. 26282
                              :
          Respondent          :
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION:       MARCH 26, 2001
JUDGMENT:                     DISMISSED.
APPEARANCES:
For Relator:                  Alexander Hall, Pro Se
                              No. 369550
                              Richland Correctional Institution
                              P.O. Box 8107
                              Mansfield, Ohio  44901
For Respondent:               William D. Mason, Esq.
                              Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
                              BY: L. Christopher Frey, Esq.
                              Assistant County Prosecutor
                              The Justice Center   8th Floor
                              1200 Ontario Street
                              Cleveland, Ohio 44113
                               -2-
MICHAEL J. CORRIGAN, J.:
     Relator, Alexander Hall, has filed a complaint for a writ of
mandamus through  which he seeks an  order from this court  which
requires  the respondent,  Judge  Nancy  M. Russo,  to  obey  the
appellate judgment that was rendered by this Court in State v. Hall
(June 29, 2000), Cuyahoga  App. No. 76467, unreported.  In  Hall,
this Court held that the relator was improperly sentenced and the
matter was remanded for re-sentencing.  The respondent has filed a
 response to petition for writ of mandamus  which we shall treat as
a motion to dismiss pursuant to Civ.R. 12.
     In order  for this Court  to issue a  writ of mandamus,  the
relator must demonstrate that:
     1)   the relator possesses a  clear legal right to  the
          relief requested;
     2)   the  respondent possesses  a clear  legal duty  to
          perform the requested relief; and
     3)   there exists no  adequate remedy  in the  ordinary
          course of the law.
State ex rel. Ney v. Niehaus (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 118.   Herein,
the relator has availed himself of an adequate remedy at law vis-a-
visa direct appeal. Following remand as ordered in State v. Hall,
supra, the respondent re-sentenced the relator.  The relator  has
filed  an  appeal  with regard  to  the  re-sentencing  order  as
journalized on September 18, 2000.  See Cuyahoga App. No.  78825.
Thus, mandamus  will not issue where  the relator has employed  a
plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law by way
of an appeal.  State ex  rel. Hastings Mut. Ins. Co. v.  Merrilat
(1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 152;  State ex rel. Rhodes v. Van  Brocklin
                               -3-
(1998), 36 Ohio St.3d 236.
     Accordingly, we grant  the respondent's  motion to  dismiss.
Clerk to serve notice of this judgment to all parties as provided
in Civ.R. 58(B).  Costs to relator.
     Complaint dismissed.
                                   ______________________________
                                        MICHAEL J. CORRIGAN
                                               JUDGE
DIANE KARPINSKI, A.J., and
COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J., CONCUR.
 
 
 
.