State ex rel. Compton v. Sutula
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.
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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2012 Ohio 1209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-compton-v-sutula-ohioctapp-2012.