State ex rel. Cotton v. Russo

2014 Ohio 4482
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedOctober 3, 2014
Docket101744
StatusPublished

This text of 2014 Ohio 4482 (State ex rel. Cotton v. Russo) 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. Cotton v. Russo, 2014 Ohio 4482 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

[Cite as State ex rel. Cotton v. Russo, 2014-Ohio-4482.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 101744

STATE EX REL., MILTON COTTON RELATOR

vs.

JUDGE JOHN J. RUSSO RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED

Writ of Mandamus Order No. 478797 Motion No. 477820

RELEASE DATE: October 3, 2014 FOR RELATOR

Milton Cotton A234-317 Grafton Correctional Institution 2500 South Avon-Belden Road Grafton, OH 44044

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT

Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor

By: James E. Moss Assistant County Prosecutor 9th Floor Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, OH 44113 TIM McCORMACK, J.:

{¶1} Milton Cotton, relator, has petitioned this court to issue a writ of mandamus

to compel the trial court to rule on his motions to correct void sentence filed on April 17,

2014, and May 12, 2014, in State v. Cotton, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-92-281730.

Respondent has filed a motion for summary judgment that Cotton has not opposed. For

the reasons that follow, we grant respondent’s motion for summary judgment and deny

relator’s complaint because it is moot.

{¶2} Respondent’s motion for summary judgment attached a copy of the trial

court’s entry that was journalized on August 21, 2014, which demonstrates that a ruling

has been rendered with regard to relator’s motions. “[R]elief is unwarranted because

mandamus and procedendo will not compel the performance of a duty that has already

been performed.” State ex rel. Hopson v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 135

Ohio St.3d 456, 2013-Ohio-1911, 989 N.E.2d 49, ¶ 4.

{¶3} Accordingly, we grant respondent’s motion for summary judgment and deny

relator’s complaint for writ of mandamus. Costs are assessed against relator but are

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.

__________________________________________ TIM McCORMACK, JUDGE

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, P.J., and MELODY J. STEWART, J., CONCUR

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

Related

State Ex Rel. Hopson v. Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
2013 Ohio 1911 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2014 Ohio 4482, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-cotton-v-russo-ohioctapp-2014.