State ex rel. Juhan v. Burnside

2014 Ohio 610

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 14, 2014
• Docket: 100697
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State ex rel. Juhan v. Burnside, 2014-Ohio-610.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 100697

STATE EX REL. FREDDIE JUHAN

RELATOR vs. JUDGE JANET BURNSIDE

RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED

Writ of Mandamus Motion No. 470774 Order No. 471609

RELEASE DATE: February 14, 2014 FOR RELATOR

Freddie Juhan Inmate No. 621-122 Lake Erie Correctional Institution 501 Thompson Road Conneaut, Ohio 44030

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT

Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor

BY: James E. Moss Assistant County Prosecutor The Justice Center, 8th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 LARRY A. JONES, SR., J.:

{¶1} On December 3, 2013, the relator, Freddie Juhan, commenced this mandamus

action against the respondent, Judge Janet Burnside, to compel the judge to rule on a

motion for jail-time credit that Juhan filed on June 11, 2013, in the underlying case, State

v. Juhan, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-548303. On December 17, 2013, the respondent judge

moved for summary judgment, inter alia, on the grounds of mootness. Juhan filed his

response to the motion for summary judgment on January 8, 2014. For the following

reasons, this court grants the judge’s dispositive motion and denies the application for a

writ of mandamus.

{¶2} In the underlying case in late November 2011, a jury found Juhan guilty of

domestic violence, and the judge sentenced him to 36 months in prison. The judge also

granted him 264 days of jail-time credit. On June 11, 2013, Juhan filed the subject

motion for jail-time credit and asked for an additional 66 days of credit. On June 21,

2013, the respondent judge issued a journal entry denying the subject motion explaining

that the defendant was given full credit at the time of sentencing. Juhan apparently

never received a copy of this entry and commenced the instant mandamus action.1

{¶3} The June 21, 2013 entry establishes that this mandamus action is moot. The

1 The requisites for mandamus are well established: (1) the relator must have a clear legal right to the requested relief, (2) the respondent must have a clear legal duty to perform the requested relief and (3) there must be no adequate remedy at law. Additionally, although mandamus may be used to compel a court to exercise judgment or to discharge a function, it may not control judicial discretion, even if that discretion is grossly abused. State ex rel. Ney v. Niehaus, 33 Ohio St.3d 118, 515 N.E.2d 914 (1987). Mandamus is not a substitute for appeal. State ex rel. Keenan v. Calabrese, 69 Ohio St.3d 176, 631 N.E.2d 119 (1994); and State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm. of respondent judge has fulfilled her duty to resolve the motion, and Juhan has received the

relief to which he was entitled, a ruling on his motion. Relief is not warranted.

{¶4} Accordingly, this court grants the judge’s motion for summary judgment and

denies the application for a writ of mandamus. Relator to pay 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).

{¶5} Writ denied.

LARRY A. JONES, SR., JUDGE

FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., P.J., and MELODY J. STEWART, J., CONCUR

Ohio, 11 Ohio St.2d 141, 228 N.E.2d 631 (1967), paragraph three of the syllabus.