State ex rel. Compton v. Sutula

2012 Ohio 1209
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedMarch 21, 2012
Docket97808
StatusPublished

This text of 2012 Ohio 1209 (State ex rel. Compton v. Sutula) 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. Compton v. Sutula, 2012 Ohio 1209 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

[Cite as State ex rel. Compton v. Sutula, 2012-Ohio-1209.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 97808

STATE OF OHIO, EX REL., JOHN COMPTON RELATOR

vs.

JUDGE JOHN D. SUTULA RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED

Writ of Mandamus Motion Nos. 451937 and 452367 Order No. 452794

RELEASED DATE: March 21, 2012 FOR RELATOR

John Compton 35864 Chestnut Ridge N. Ridgeville, OH 44039

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT

William D. Mason Cuyahoga County Prosecutor

By: James E. Moss The Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street, 9th Fl. Cleveland, OH 44113 PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, A.J.:

{¶1} John Compton has filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus. Compton

seeks an order from this court, which requires Judge John Sutula to render a ruling

with regard to the following motions as filed in the underlying action of State v.

Compton, Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-451212: (1)

motion for order to comply with plea bargain, filed on August 4, 2011; (2) motion

requesting the trial court to revisit a previously filed motion to dismiss under R.C.

2945.71, filed on August 16, 2010; and (3) a motion for findings of fact and

conclusions of law with regard to jurisdiction, filed on October 4, 2011. Judge

Sutula has filed a motion for summary judgment, which we grant for the following

reasons.

{¶2} Compton’s request for a writ of mandamus is moot. Attached to the

motion for summary judgment are copies of journal entries, as journalized on

January 31, 2012, and February 1, 2012, which demonstrate that rulings have been

rendered with regard to the motion for the court to revisit the previously filed motion

to dismiss, the motion for order to comply with plea bargain agreement, and the

motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law. There remains no motions

pending before Judge Sutula, as filed by Compton in CR-451212. State ex rel. Jerninghan v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 74 Ohio St.3d 278, 658

N.E.2d 723 (1996); State ex rel. Gantt v. Coleman, 6 Ohio St.3d 5, 450 N.E.2d 1163

(1983).

{¶3} Accordingly, we grant Judge Sutula’s motion for summary judgment.

Costs to Compton. 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).

Writ denied.

PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

LARRY A. JONES, SR., J., and EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, 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)
2012 Ohio 1209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-compton-v-sutula-ohioctapp-2012.