State ex rel. Lenard v. Russo
This text of 2013 Ohio 829 (State ex rel. Lenard v. Russo) 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.
Opinion
[Cite as State ex rel. Lenard v. Russo, 2013-Ohio-829.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 99229
STATE OF OHIO EX REL., RICHARD LENARD RELATOR
vs.
JUDGE JOHN J. RUSSO, ET AL. RESPONDENTS
JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED
Writ of Procedendo Motion No. 461110 Order No. 462403
RELEASED DATE: March 6, 2013
FOR RELATOR Richard Lenard, Pro Se Inmate No. 570-627 Noble Correctional Institution 15708 McConnelsville Road Caldwell, Ohio 43724
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENTS
Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: James E. Moss Assistant County Prosecutor 9th Floor Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, P.J.: {¶1} Richard Lenard, the relator, has filed a complaint for a writ of procedendo.
Lenard seeks an order from this court, which requires Judge John J. Russo and Judge
Nancy Fuerst, the respondents, to render rulings with regard to a “motion for return and
inspection of property,” and a “motion to vacate and/or correct multiple void sentences”
as filed in State v. Lenard, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-463837. For the following reason, we
decline to issue a writ of procedendo.
{¶2} Lenard’s motion for return and inspection of property was filed, in
CR-463837, on November 29, 2005, prior to his plea of guilty entered on December 7,
2005, to one count of receiving stolen property, two counts of tampering with records,
one count of telecommunications fraud, one count of forgery, two counts of theft, and one
count of grand theft motor vehicle. On March 16, 2006, Lenard was sentenced.
Because Lenard’s motion for return and inspection of property was filed and pending
before his plea of guilty, the motion is “deemed to be denied” upon sentencing. State ex
rel. The V Cos. v. Marshall, 81 Ohio St.3d 467, 1998-Ohio-329, 692 N.E.2d 198; Jones v.
Sutula, 8th Dist. No. 91296, 2008-Ohio-2777.
{¶3} In addition, Lenard’s request for a ruling, with regard to his pending motion
to vacate and/or correct multiple void sentences, is moot. Attached to the respondents’
motion for summary judgment is a copy of a judgment entry, as journalized on December
14, 2012, which demonstrates that a ruling has been rendered with regard to the pending
motion to vacate. Thus, the respondents have already performed their duty and once
again procedendo shall not issue on behalf of Lenard. State ex rel. Fontanella v. Kontos, 117 Ohio St.3d 514, 2008-Ohio-1431, 885 N.E.2d 220; State ex rel. Howard v. Doneghy,
102 Ohio St.3d 355, 2004-Ohio-3207, 810 N.E.2d 958, ¶ 6, quoting State ex rel., Kreps v.
Christiansen, 88 Ohio St.3d 313, 318, 725 N.E.2d 663 (2000).
{¶4} Accordingly, we grant the respondents’ motion for summary judgment.
Lenard to pay costs. The court directs the clerk of courts to serve all parties with notice
of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal as required by Civ.R. 58(B).
{¶5} Writ denied.
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, PRESIDING JUDGE
MARY BOYLE, J., and KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2013 Ohio 829, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-lenard-v-russo-ohioctapp-2013.