Bronczyk v. Gaul
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.
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
2015 Ohio 22, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bronczyk-v-gaul-ohioctapp-2015.