State ex rel. Moorer v. Donnelly

2014 Ohio 2066
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedMay 13, 2014
Docket101031
StatusPublished

This text of 2014 Ohio 2066 (State ex rel. Moorer v. Donnelly) 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. Moorer v. Donnelly, 2014 Ohio 2066 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

[Cite as State ex rel. Moorer v. Donnelly, 2014-Ohio-2066.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 101031

STATE OF OHIO EX REL., CORNELIUS MOORER RELATOR

vs.

MICHAEL P. DONNELLY, JUDGE RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED

Writ of Procedendo Motion No. 473412 Order No. 474025 RELEASE DATE: May 13, 2014 FOR RELATOR

Cornelius Moorer, pro se Inmate No. A543-644 Marion Correctional Institution P.O. Box 57 Marion, OH 43301

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT

Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor

BY: James E. Moss Assistant County Prosecutor The Justice Center, 9th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, OH 44113

MELODY J. STEWART, J.: {¶1} Cornelius Moorer has filed a complaint for a writ of procedendo. Moorer

seeks a writ that requires Judge Michael P. Donnelly to render a ruling with regard to a

motion to “correct the journal entry filed on March 19, 2008, to properly reflect the

sentence imposed in open court on March 17, 2008” that was journalized in State v.

Moorer, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-07-497196-A. We decline to issue a writ of

procedendo on behalf of Moorer.

{¶2} Attached to Judge Donnelly’s motion for summary judgment is a copy of a

judgment entry, journalized on March 21, 2014, which demonstrates that a ruling has

been issued with regard to Moorer’s motion to correct the original sentencing journal

entry. Moorer’s request for a writ of procedendo is moot. State ex rel. Fontanella v.

Kantos, 117 Ohio St.3d 514, 2008-Ohio-1431, 885 N.E.2d 220; State ex rel. Reynolds v.

Basinger, 99 Ohio St.3d 303, 2003-Ohio-3631, 791 N.E.2d 459. In addition, a writ of

procedendo will not issue to compel the performance of a duty that has already been

performed. State ex rel. Rose v. McGinty, 123 Ohio St.3d 86, 2009-Ohio-4050, 914

N.E.2d 366; State ex rel. Sevayega v. McMonagle, 122 Ohio St.3d 54, 2009-Ohio-2367,

907 N.E.2d 1180. {¶3} Accordingly, we grant Judge Donnelly’s motion for summary judgment.

Costs to Moorer. The court directs the clerk of court to serve all parties with notice of

this judgment and the date of entry upon the journal as required by Civ.R. 58(B).

{¶4} Writ denied.

MELODY J. STEWART, JUDGE

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, P.J., and TIM McCORMACK, J., CONCUR

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

Related

State ex rel. Rose v. McGinty
2009 Ohio 4050 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2009)
State ex rel. Sevayega v. McMonagle
2009 Ohio 2367 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2009)
State ex rel. Reynolds v. Basinger
99 Ohio St. 3d 303 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2003)
State ex rel. Fontanella v. Kontos
117 Ohio St. 3d 514 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2014 Ohio 2066, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-moorer-v-donnelly-ohioctapp-2014.