State ex rel. Brown v. Corrigan

2014 Ohio 2067
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedMay 12, 2014
Docket101065
StatusPublished

This text of 2014 Ohio 2067 (State ex rel. Brown v. Corrigan) 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
State ex rel. Brown v. Corrigan, 2014 Ohio 2067 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

[Cite as State ex rel. Brown v. Corrigan, 2014-Ohio-2067.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 101065

STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. DEMETRIUS BROWN

RELATOR

vs.

JUDGE PETER CORRIGAN RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED

Writ of Procedendo Motion No. 473367 Order No. 474148

RELEASE DATE: May 12, 2014 FOR RELATOR

Demetrius Brown, pro se No. 502-975 P.O. Box 7010 Chillicothe, Ohio 45601

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT

Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor BY: James E. Moss Assistant County Prosecutor 9th Floor Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 MARY J. BOYLE, A.J.:

{¶1} Relator, Demetrius Brown, petitions this court to compel respondent judge

to dispose of his motion for jail-time credit filed in State v. Brown, Cuyahoga C.P. No.

CR-05-464069-A, on February 3, 2014.

{¶2} Respondent has filed a motion for summary judgment citing numerous

procedural deficiencies in Brown’s petition and also attaching a copy of a journal entry

issued by respondent that granted Brown’s motion for jail-time credit on February 11,

2014. Specifically, respondent asserts that Brown failed to comply with the

requirements of R.C. 2969.25(C), Civ.R. 10, Loc.App.R. 45, and R.C. 2969.25. Relator

has not opposed respondent’s motion. Respondent’s motion for summary judgment is

granted based on the procedural deficiencies in Brown’s petition. Further, Brown is not

entitled to a writ of procedendo because the action is moot. State ex rel. Jerninghan v.

Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 74 Ohio St.3d 278, 1996-Ohio-117, 658 N.E.2d

723; State ex rel. Gantt v. Coleman, 6 Ohio St.3d 5, 450 N.E.2d 1163 (1983).

{¶3} Accordingly, respondent’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

Relator to pay costs. 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).

Writ denied.

_____________________________________________ MARY J. BOYLE, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J., and TIM McCORMACK, J., CONCUR

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

Related

State ex rel. Gantt v. Coleman
450 N.E.2d 1163 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1983)
State ex rel. Jerninghan v. Court of Common Pleas
658 N.E.2d 723 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2014 Ohio 2067, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-brown-v-corrigan-ohioctapp-2014.