State Ex Rel. Carter v. Corrigan, 91895 (9-29-2008)

Ohio Court of Appeals

State Ex Rel. Carter v. Corrigan, 91895 (9-29-2008)

2008 Ohio 5104

Ohio Court of Appeals·Decided September 29, 2008·No. No. 91895.·Unpublished

Opinion

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION *Page 3 {¶ 1} Robert Carter has filed a complaint for a writ of procedendo. Carter seeks an order from this court, which requires Judge Peter Corrigan to render a ruling with regard to a motion for pre-conviction jail time credit that was filed in State v. Carter, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-04-452673-A. Judge Corrigan has filed a motion for summary judgment.

{¶ 2} Attached to the motion for summary judgment is a copy of a judgment entry, journalized on August 19, 2008, which clearly demonstrates that Judge Corrigan has rendered a ruling with regard to Carter's motion for pre-conviction jail time credit. Thus, Carter's request for a writ of procedendo is moot. State ex rel Konoff v.Shafer, 80 Ohio St.3d 294, 1997-Ohio-l 19, 685 N.E.2d 1248; Martin v.Judges of the Lucas Cty. Court of Common Pleas (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 71,552 N.E.2d 906.

{¶ 3} Accordingly, we grant Judge Corrigan's motion for summary judgment. Costs waived. It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Eighth District Court of Appeals serve notice of this judgment upon all parties as required by Civ. R. 58(B). *Page 4

Writ denied.

JAMES J. SWEENEY, A.J., and PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, J., CONCUR

*Page 1

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

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION *Page 3 {¶ 1} Robert Carter has filed a complaint for a writ of procedendo. Carter seeks an order from this court, which requires Judge Peter Corrigan to render a ruling with regard to a motion for pre-conviction jail time credit that was filed in State v. Carter, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-04-452673-A. Judge Corrigan has filed a motion for summary judgment.

{¶ 2} Attached to the motion for summary judgment is a copy of a judgment entry, journalized on August 19, 2008, which clearly demonstrates that Judge Corrigan has rendered a ruling with regard to Carter's motion for pre-conviction jail time credit. Thus, Carter's request for a writ of procedendo is moot. State ex rel Konoff v.Shafer, 80 Ohio St.3d 294, 1997-Ohio-l 19, 685 N.E.2d 1248; Martin v.Judges of the Lucas Cty. Court of Common Pleas (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 71,552 N.E.2d 906.

{¶ 3} Accordingly, we grant Judge Corrigan's motion for summary judgment. Costs waived. It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Eighth District Court of Appeals serve notice of this judgment upon all parties as required by Civ. R. 58(B). *Page 4

Writ denied.

JAMES J. SWEENEY, A.J., and PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, J., CONCUR

*Page 1

State Ex Rel. Carter v. Corrigan, 91895 (9-29-2008), 2008 Ohio 5104 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

2008 Ohio 5104 (State Ex Rel. Carter v. Corrigan, 91895 (9-29-2008)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related