State ex rel. Cotton v. Russo
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.
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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2014 Ohio 4482, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-cotton-v-russo-ohioctapp-2014.