State ex rel. Green v. Saffold

2014 Ohio 3242
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedJuly 22, 2014
Docket101151
StatusPublished

This text of 2014 Ohio 3242 (State ex rel. Green 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. Green v. Saffold, 2014 Ohio 3242 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

[Cite as State ex rel. Green v. Saffold, 2014-Ohio-3242.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 101151

STATE EX REL. ERIC D. GREEN RELATOR

vs.

JUDGE SHIRLEY S. SAFFOLD RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED

Writ of Procedendo Motion No. 474018 Order No. 476170

RELEASE DATE: July 22, 2014 FOR RELATOR

Eric D. Green Inmate #A573-121, Grafton 2500 S. Avon Belden Road Grafton, OH 44044

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT

Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: James E. Moss Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Justice Center - 9th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, OH 44113 KENNETH A. ROCCO, P.J.:

{¶1} Relator, Eric D. Green, petitions this court to compel the respondent judge

to dispose of his motion for jail-time credit filed in State v. Green, Cuyahoga C.P. No.

CR-09-522075-A filed on October 17, 2013.

{¶2} Respondent has filed a motion for summary judgment citing numerous

procedural deficiencies in Green’s petition and also attached a copy of a journal entry

issued by respondent that granted Green’s motion for jail-time credit on April 2, 2014.

Specifically, respondent asserts that Green failed to comply with the requirements of R.C.

2969.25(C), Civ.R. 10, and Loc.App.R. 45. Respondent’s motion for summary judgment

is granted based on the procedural deficiencies in Green’s petition. Further, Green is not

entitled to a writ of procedendo because the action is moot. State ex rel. Jerninghan v.

Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 74 Ohio St.3d 278, 1996-Ohio-117, 658 N.E.2d

723; State ex rel. Gantt v. Coleman, 6 Ohio St.3d 5, 450 N.E.2d 1163 (1983).

{¶3} Accordingly, respondent’s motion for summary judgment is granted. Relator

to pay costs; costs waived. 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).

{¶4} Writ denied. __________________________________________ KENNETH A. ROCCO, PRESIDING JUDGE

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., and PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J., CONCUR

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

Related

State ex rel. Gantt v. Coleman
450 N.E.2d 1163 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1983)
State ex rel. Jerninghan v. Court of Common Pleas
658 N.E.2d 723 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2014 Ohio 3242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-green-v-saffold-ohioctapp-2014.