State ex rel. Pettway v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas

2012 Ohio 1971
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedApril 30, 2012
Docket98045
StatusPublished

This text of 2012 Ohio 1971 (State ex rel. Pettway v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas) 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. Pettway v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 2012 Ohio 1971 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

[Cite as State ex rel. Pettway v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 2012-Ohio-1971.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 98045

STATE OF OHIO, EX REL., TIMOTHY PETTWAY

RELATOR

vs.

CUYAHOGA COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ET AL.

RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED

Writ of Procedendo Motion No. 453669 Order No. 453923

RELEASE DATE: April 30, 2012 2

FOR RELATOR

Timothy Pettway, pro se Inmate #550-655 Toledo Correctional Institution 2001 East Central Avenue Toledo, Ohio 43608

FOR RESPONDENTS

William D. Mason Cuyahoga County Prosecutor

BY: James E. Moss Assistant Prosecuting Attorney The Justice Center, 9th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 3

LARRY A. JONES, SR., J.:

{¶1} Timothy Pettway has filed a complaint for a writ of procedendo. Pettway

seeks an order from this court, which requires that the Cuyahoga County Court of

Common Pleas and Judge Kenneth R. Callahan, the Respondents, to render a ruling with

regard to a motion for new trial as filed on March 10, 2009, in State v. Pettway, Cuyahoga

County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 498474.

{¶2} Attached to the motion for summary judgment, filed by the Respondents, is a

copy of an entry journalized on March 14, 2012, which demonstrates that a ruling has

been entered with regard to Pettway’s motion for new trial. In addition, a ruling has been

rendered with regard to his motion to vacate sentencing. Pettway’s request for a writ of

procedendo is moot. State ex rel. Fontanella v. Kontos, 117 Ohio St.3d 514,

2008-Ohio-1431, 885 N.E.2d 220; State ex rel. Jerninghan v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of

Common Pleas, 74 Ohio St.3d 278, 1996-Ohio-117, 648 N.E.2d 723.

{¶3} Accordingly, we grant Respondents’ motion for summary judgment. Cost to

be paid by Respondents. The court directs the Clerk of Court to serve notice of this

judgment and its date of entry upon all parties as required by Civ.R. 58(B).

{¶4} Writ denied. 4

LARRY A. JONES, SR., JUDGE

JAMES J. SWEENEY, P.J., and COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J., CONCUR

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

Related

State ex rel. Fontanella v. Kontos
117 Ohio St. 3d 514 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2012 Ohio 1971, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-pettway-v-cuyahoga-cty-court-of-common-pleas-ohioctapp-2012.