State ex rel. Clayton v. Strickland-Saffold
This text of 2014 Ohio 4099 (State ex rel. Clayton v. Strickland-Saffold) 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 State ex rel. Clayton v. Strickland-Saffold, 2014-Ohio-4099.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 101681
STATE EX REL., CONRAD CLAYTON RELATOR
vs.
JUDGE SHIRLEY STRICKLAND-SAFFOLD RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED
Writ of Mandamus Motion No. 477516 Order No. 477892
RELEASE DATE: September 12, 2014 FOR RELATOR
Conrad Clayton, pro se No. 642-581 Trumbull Correctional Camp P.O. Box 640 Leavittsburg, Ohio 44430
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 KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J.:
{¶1} Conrad Clayton has filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus. Clayton
seeks an order from this court that requires Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold to render a
ruling with regard to a motion for jail-time credit filed in State v. Clayton, Cuyahoga C.P.
No. CR-570339. We decline to issue a writ of mandamus on behalf of Clayton.
{¶2} Clayton’s request for a writ of mandamus is moot. Attached to the Judge
Saffold’s motion for summary judgment is a copy of a journal entry, journalized on
August 11, 2014, which demonstrates that a ruling has been rendered with regard to the
motion for jail-time credit. Thus, Clayton is not entitled to a writ of mandamus. 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, we grant Judge Saffold’s motion for summary judgment.
Costs to Judge Saffold. Costs waived. The court directs the clerk of courts to serve all
parties with notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal as required by
Civ.R. 58(B).
{¶4} Writ denied.
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, JUDGE
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., P.J., and LARRY A. JONES, SR., J., CONCUR
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2014 Ohio 4099, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-clayton-v-strickland-saffold-ohioctapp-2014.