Moralevitz v. Gaul

2015 Ohio 3772

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: September 11, 2015
• Docket: 102834
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as Moralevitz v. Gaul, 2015-Ohio-3772.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 102834

WILLIAM MORALEVITZ

RELATOR

vs.

THE HONORABLE DANIEL GAUL RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED

Writ of Procedendo Motion No. 484967 Order No. 487134

RELEASE DATE: September 11, 2015 FOR RELATOR

William Moralevitz, pro se Inmate #155102 Chillicothe Correctional Institution P.O. Box 5500 Chillicothe, OH 45601

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT

Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: James E. Moss Assistant Prosecuting Attorney The Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, OH 44113 MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J.:

{¶1} In the underlying case, State v. Moralevitz, Cuyahoga C.P. No.

CR-79-046208-ZA, in 1979, a jury found Moralevitz guilty of kidnapping and three

counts of gross sexual imposition against a seven-year-old girl. The trial court imposed

consecutive sentences of 5 to 15 years for kidnapping and 3 to 10 years for the gross

sexual imposition counts. On appeal, this court affirmed the convictions. State v.

Moralevitz, 70 Ohio App.2d 20, 433 N.E.2d 1282 (8th Dist. 1980). In 1979, Moralevitz

also filed a petition for relief from judgment that the trial court denied within a month.

Moralevitz then moved to vacate the judgment and for court records without costs. The

trial court ruled that the motion for court records was moot and denied his motion for

postconviction relief in 1982. In 1985, Moralevitz filed a motion for a trial transcript.

When the trial court denied that motion, Moralevitz commenced a mandamus action to

reverse his convictions because the trial court had improperly denied him access to his

transcript. This court dismissed the mandamus action. State ex rel. Moralevitz v.

Jones, 8th Dist. Cuyhoga No. 51276 (Dec. 23, 1985).

{¶2} On September 22, 2014, Moralevitz filed a motion for discovery in the

underlying case. When the trial court did not rule on this motion, Moralevitz on April 2,

2015, commenced this procedendo action against the respondent, Judge Daniel Gaul, to

compel the judge to rule on the motion so he “can continue to litigate this matter before

the Court.” (Moralevitz’s complaint for procedendo.) On April 15, 2015, the

respondent judge denied the subject motion. Noting that Moralevitz sought the discovery to appeal, Judge Gaul reasoned that because Moralevitz’s convictions had

already been appealed and affirmed, the subject motion for discovery was a nullity.

This journal entry, attached to the judge’s motion for summary judgment, establishes that

he has proceeded to judgment on the subject motion and that this procedendo action is

moot.

{¶3} Accordingly, the court grants the respondent’s motion for summary

judgment and denies the writ. Costs assessed against relator. The clerk is directed to

serve upon the parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal.

Civ.R. 58(B).

{¶4} Writ denied.

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, JUDGE

FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., A.J., and KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR