State Ex Rel. Frazier v. Saffold, 91188 (6-30-2008)

Ohio Court of Appeals

State Ex Rel. Frazier v. Saffold, 91188 (6-30-2008)

2008 Ohio 3353

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 30, 2008

DocketNo. 91188.

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2008 Ohio 3353 (State Ex Rel. Frazier v. Saffold, 91188 (6-30-2008)) 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. Frazier v. Saffold, 91188 (6-30-2008), 2008 Ohio 3353 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION *Page 3 {¶ 1} On March 24, 2008, the relator, Thomas Frazier, commenced this procedendo action against the respondent, Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold, to compel her to rule on his motions to clarify sentences and for an order to compel, which he filed in the underlying cases,State v. Frazier, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Case Nos. CR-320159 and CR-322046, in May 2007.¹ On May 27, 2008, the respondent moved for summary judgment on the grounds of mootness. Attached to the dispositive motion were copies of certified journal entries, file-stamped May 27, 2008, in the underlying cases, denying Frazier's motions to clarify. These journal entries establish that Frazier has received his requested relief, rulings on his motions, and that this procedendo action is moot. Frazier 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 writ. The parties are to bear their own costs. The clerk is directed to serve upon the parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. Civ.R. 58(B). *Page 4

JAMES J. SWEENEY, A.J., and MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR

¹ Frazier maintains that the Ohio Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has improperly calculated his sentence relating to the gun specifications. He filed the motions in an effort to correct the sentences.

*Page 1

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

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION *Page 3 {¶ 1} On March 24, 2008, the relator, Thomas Frazier, commenced this procedendo action against the respondent, Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold, to compel her to rule on his motions to clarify sentences and for an order to compel, which he filed in the underlying cases,State v. Frazier, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Case Nos. CR-320159 and CR-322046, in May 2007.¹ On May 27, 2008, the respondent moved for summary judgment on the grounds of mootness. Attached to the dispositive motion were copies of certified journal entries, file-stamped May 27, 2008, in the underlying cases, denying Frazier's motions to clarify. These journal entries establish that Frazier has received his requested relief, rulings on his motions, and that this procedendo action is moot. Frazier 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 writ. The parties are to bear their own costs. The clerk is directed to serve upon the parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. Civ.R. 58(B). *Page 4

JAMES J. SWEENEY, A.J., and MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR

¹ Frazier maintains that the Ohio Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has improperly calculated his sentence relating to the gun specifications. He filed the motions in an effort to correct the sentences.

*Page 1

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2008 Ohio 3353, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-frazier-v-saffold-91188-6-30-2008-ohioctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack