COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
 
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
 
                           No. 84400
 
 
JOHNNY GRIFFIN               :         ORIGINAL ACTION
                             :
                             :         JOURNAL ENTRY
          Relator            :              AND
                             :            OPINION
    vs.                      :
                             :
JOHN L. ANGELOTTA,           :
JUDGE, ET AL.                :
                             :
          Respondent         :
 
 
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION:           APRIL 26, 2004
 
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS:         WRIT OF MANDAMUS
 
JUDGMENT:                         Writ Denied.
                                  Motion No. 358627
                                  Order No. 358684
 
 
APPEARANCES:
 
For Relator:                      JOHNNY GRIFFIN, PRO SE
                                  Inmate No. A231-649
                                  P.O. Box 788
                                  Mansfield, OH 44901
 
 
For Respondent:                   WILLIAM D. MASON
                                  Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
                                  BY: Kristen Lusnia
                                  Assistant County Prosecutor
                                  Justice Center - 9th Floor
                                  1200 Ontario Street
                                  Cleveland, Ohio 44113
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                               -2-
 
Judge Anne L. Kilbane:
 
    Johnny Griffin commenced this mandamus action against Retired
 
Judge John L. Angelotta and Judge Mary Boyle, to compel them rule
 
on his motion for execution of sentence and to re-sentence him
 
pursuant to this court's order in State v. Griffin.1 The judges,
 
through the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor, filed an answer and moved
 
for summary judgment.
 
    The requisites for mandamus are well established: 1) there
 
must be a clear legal right to the requested relief, 2) there
 
respondent must be a clear legal duty to perform the requested
 
relief, and 3) there must be no adequate remedy at law. Moreover,
 
mandamus is an extraordinary remedy which is to be exercised with
 
caution and only when the right is clear. It should not be issued
 
in doubtful cases.2   Furthermore, if the relator had an adequate
 
remedy, regardless of whether it was used, relief in mandamus is
 
precluded.3
 
    Attached to the motion for summary judgment is a copy of an
 
order denying Griffin's motion for execution of sentence and,
 
therefore, Griffin's request for a writ of mandamus on his motion
 
 
 
 
    1 (Dec. 3, 1992), Cuyahoga App. No. 61436.)
 
    2 State ex rel. Taylor v. Glasser (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 165,
364 N.E.2d 1.
 
    3  State ex rel. Tran v. McGrath (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 45, 676
N.E.2d 108.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                -3-
 
for execution of sentence is denied as moot.4
 
     The judges further argue that Griffin's request for this court
 
to order his re-sentencing should also be denied as moot, and
 
provide a copy of the lower court's docket which reveals that
 
Griffin's sentence was modified pursuant to our order in Griffin,
 
supra. The docket is unclear whether Griffin was present for his
 
re-sentencing under Crim.R. 32(A), and, therefore, the judges    '
 
motion for summary judgment on the issue of Griffin's re-sentencing
 
is denied. Nevertheless, we find that he has an adequate remedy at
 
law by filing a delayed appeal under App.R. 5.5
 
     Griffin also failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25 which requires
 
that he attach an affidavit to his complaint that describes each
 
civil action or appeal of a civil action filed in the previous five
 
years. The failure to provide such affidavit constitutes
 
sufficient grounds for dismissal of a complaint for a writ of
 
mandamus.6
 
     Finally, Griffin failed to comply with Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)
 
which provides that all complaints must contain the specific
 
statements of fact upon which the claim of illegality is based and
 
must be supported by an affidavit from the plaintiff or relator
 
 
     4State ex rel. Gantt v. Coleman (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 5, 450
N.E.2d 1163.
 
     5State ex rel. Reggie D. Hite, Sr. v. State of Ohio (Feb. 22,
2002), Cuyahoga App. No. 79734.
 
     6State ex rel. Zanders v. Ohio Parole Board (1998), 82 Ohio
St.3d 421, 696 N.E.2d 594.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                               -4-
 
specifying the details of the claim.7
 
    Accordingly, we grant in part the judges' motion for summary
 
judgment on Griffin's motion for execution of sentence, but deny
 
summary judgment on the request for re-sentencing. Griffin 's
 
request that this court order his re-sentencing is also denied.
 
Griffin to bear costs. It is further ordered that the clerk shall
 
serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and date of entry
 
pursuant to Civ.R. 58(B).
 
    Writ denied.
 
 
                                        ANNE L. KILBANE,
                                        PRESIDING JUDGE
 
JAMES J. SWEENEY, J., CONCURS
 
ANTHONY O. CALABRESE, JR., J., CONCURS
 
 
 
 
    7  State ex rel. Nero v. Coyne (Jul. 5, 2001), Cuyahoga App.
No. 79714, unreported; State ex rel. Wilson v. Calabrese (Jan 18,
1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 70077, unreported; State ex rel. Smith v.
McMonagle (Jul 17, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 70899, unreported.
 
 
 
.