Bronczyk v. Gaul

2015 Ohio 22
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedJanuary 7, 2015
Docket101988
StatusPublished

This text of 2015 Ohio 22 (Bronczyk v. Gaul) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bronczyk v. Gaul, 2015 Ohio 22 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

[Cite as Bronczyk v. Gaul, 2015-Ohio-22.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 101988

JOSEPH J. BRONCZYK

RELATOR

vs.

HONORABLE DANIEL GAUL

RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED

Writ of Mandamus Order No. 481483 Motion No. 480466

RELEASE DATE: January 7, 2015 FOR RELATOR

Joseph J. Bronczyk #594-815 Richland Correctional Institution P.O. Box 8107 Mansfield, OH 44901

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT

Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor

By: James E. Moss Assistant County Prosecutor 9th Floor Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, OH 44113

TIM McCORMACK, J.: {¶1} On September 30, 2014, the relator, Joseph Bronczyk, commenced this mandamus

action against the respondent, Judge Daniel Gaul, to compel the judge to issue an entry stating

reasons for the denial of Bronczyk’s motion for DNA testing in the underlying case, State v.

Bronczyk, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-10-540345-A. On November 24, 2014, the respondent judge

moved for summary judgment on the grounds of mootness. Attached to this motion was a

certified copy of a November 21, 2014 journal entry stating that the judge denied the motion for

DNA testing because, pursuant to R.C. 2953.73, DNA testing of the screwdriver would not be

determinative and because Bronczyk did not request DNA testing at the time of trial, as required

by the statute. Bronczyk never replied to the dispositive motion. The attached journal entry

establishes that the respondent judge fulfilled the statutory duty to state reasons for denying DNA

testing and renders this mandamus action moot.

{¶2} Accordingly, this court grants the respondent’s motion for summary judgment and

denies the application for a writ of mandamus. Respondent to pay costs; costs waived. This

court directs the clerk of courts to serve all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry

upon the journal as required by Civ.R. 58(B).

{¶3} Writ denied.

__________________________________________ TIM McCORMACK, JUDGE

LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J., and PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J., CONCUR

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2015 Ohio 22, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bronczyk-v-gaul-ohioctapp-2015.