State ex rel. Clayton v. Strickland-Saffold

2014 Ohio 4099
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedSeptember 12, 2014
Docket101681
StatusPublished

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.

Bluebook
State ex rel. Clayton v. Strickland-Saffold, 2014 Ohio 4099 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).

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

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 4099, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-clayton-v-strickland-saffold-ohioctapp-2014.