State ex rel. Haines v. Sutula

2011 Ohio 1968

Opinion

[Cite as State ex rel. Haines v. Sutula, 2011-Ohio-1968.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 96429

STATE OF OHIO, EX REL., ANDREW HAINES

RELATOR

vs. JUDGE JOHN D. SUTULA

RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED

Writ of Mandamus Motion No. 442829 Order No. 442882 RELEASE DATE: April 15, 2011

FOR RELATOR

Andrew Haines Inmate No. 583246 Oakwood Correctional Facility 3200 North West Road Lima, Ohio 45801

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

William D. Mason Cuyahoga County Prosecutor

BY: James E. Moss Assistant Prosecuting Attorney The Justice Center, 8 Floor ht

1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113

LARRY A. JONES, J.:

{¶ 1} Andrew Haines has filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus.

Haines seeks an order from this court, which requires Judge John Sutula to

render rulings with regard to motions for jail-time credit as filed in the

criminal cases of State v. Haines, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas

Case Nos. CR-484358, CR-482605, CR-480823, CR-520884, and CR-525108. Haines also seeks an order, which requires Judge Sutula to issue findings of

fact and conclusions of law upon disposition of the motions for jail-time credit.

Judge Sutula has filed a motion for summary judgment, which we grant for

the following reasons.

{¶ 2} Attached to the Judge Sutula’s motion for summary judgment are

copies of journal entries, as journalized on March 11, 2011, which

demonstrates that Haines has been granted jail-time credit in the amount of

555 days. Haines’ request for mandamus is thus 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 (1983), 6 Ohio

St.3d 5, 450 N.E.2d 1163.

{¶ 3} In addition, Judge Sutula possesses no duty to issue findings of

fact and conclusions of law upon issuing a ruling with regard to the motions

for jail-time credit. State ex rel. Hudson v. Sutula (Jan. 14, 2011), Cuyahoga

App. No. 96247; State ex rel. Jefferson v. Russo, Cuyahoga App. No. 90682,

2008-Ohio-135.

{¶ 4} Accordingly, we grant Judge Sutula’s motion for summary

judgment. Costs to Sutula. It is further ordered that the Clerk of the

Eighth District Court of Appeals serve notice of this judgment upon all

parties as required by Civ.R. 58(B).

Writ denied. LARRY A. JONES, JUDGE

MARY J. BOYLE, P.J., and KENNETH A. ROCCO, J., CONCUR