State ex rel. Epps v. Saffold

2012 Ohio 4612
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedOctober 3, 2012
Docket98684
StatusPublished

This text of 2012 Ohio 4612 (State ex rel. Epps v. 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. Epps v. Saffold, 2012 Ohio 4612 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

[Cite as State ex rel. Epps v. Saffold, 2012-Ohio-4612.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 98684

STATE EX REL. CARLTON EPPS RELATOR

vs.

JUDGE SHIRLEY STRICKLAND SAFFOLD RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED

Writ of Procedendo Motion No. 457344 Order No. 458923

RELEASE DATE: October 3, 2012 FOR RELATOR

Carlton Epps 2000 South Avon Belden Road Grafton, Ohio 44044

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT

Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: James E. Moss Assistant Prosecuting Attorney The Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street, 8th Floor Cleveland, Ohio 44113 JAMES J. SWEENEY, P.J.:

{¶1} On July 17, 2012, the relator, Carlton Epps, commenced this procedendo

action against the respondent, Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold, to compel the judge to

state the number of days he spent in jail in the underlying case, State v. Epps, Cuyahoga

C. P. No. CR-546428. On February 14, 2012, and June 20, 2012, he filed motions for

jail-time credit with the respondent. On August 1, 2012, the respondent moved for

summary judgment on the grounds of mootness. Attached to the dispositive motion

was a copy of certified journal entry, file-stamped July 24, 2012, in the underlying case,

granting Epps 66 days of credit. This journal entry establishes that Epps has received

his requested relief and that the action is, therefore, moot. State ex rel. Corder v.

Wilson, 68 Ohio App.3d 567, 589 N.E.2d 113 (10th Dist. 1991). Epps never filed a

response to the motion for summary judgment.

{¶2} Accordingly, the court grants the respondent’s motion for summary

judgment and denies the application for a writ of procedendo. Each side to bear their

own costs. This court directs the clerk of court to serve all parties notice of this

judgment and its date of entry upon the journal as required by Civ.R. 58(B).

{¶3} Writ denied.

JAMES J. SWEENEY, PRESIDING JUDGE

COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J., and SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR

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

Related

State, Ex Rel. Corder v. Wilson
589 N.E.2d 113 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2012 Ohio 4612, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-epps-v-saffold-ohioctapp-2012.