State ex rel. Poole v. Corrigan

2011 Ohio 3270

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 28, 2011
• Docket: 96745
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State ex rel. Poole v. Corrigan, 2011-Ohio-3270.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 96745

STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. LARRY POOLE, RELATOR

vs.

JUDGE BRIAN CORRIGAN RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED

Writ of Mandamus Motion No. 444889 Order No. 445668

RELEASED DATE: June 28, 2011 FOR RELATOR

Larry Poole, pro se Inmate #432-273 Lake Erie Correctional Institution 501 Thompson Road Conneaut, Ohio 44030

ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT

William D. Mason Cuyahoga County Prosecutor

By: James E. Moss Assistant County Prosecutor 8th Floor Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J.:

{¶ 1} Larry Poole, the relator, has filed a complaint for a writ of

mandamus. Poole seeks an order from this court that requires Judge Brian

Corrigan, the respondent, to render a ruling with regard to a motion to

withdraw plea of guilty as filed on December 1, 2010, in the underlying

criminal action of State v. Poole, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas

Case No. CR-418372. Judge Corrigan has filed a motion for summary

judgment, which we grant for the following reasons.

{¶ 2} Initially, we find that Poole’s complaint for a writ of mandamus is

procedurally defective. Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a) mandates that a complaint for an extraordinary writ must be supported by a sworn affidavit that specifies

the details of Poole’s claim. The failure of Poole to comply with the

supporting affidavit requirement of Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a) requires the

dismissal of the complaint for a writ of mandamus. State ex rel. Smith v.

McMonagle (July 17, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 70899; State ex rel. Wilson v.

Calabrese (Jan. 18, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 70077.

{¶ 3} Poole has also failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C), which

requires that an inmate, who files a complaint against a government entity or

government employee, must support the complaint with a statement that: (1)

sets forth the balance in the inmate’s account for the preceding six months, as

certified by the institutional cashier; and (2) a statement that sets forth all

other cash and items of value as owned by the inmate. The failure of Poole

to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C) warrants dismissal of his complaint for a writ

of mandamus. Boles v. Knab, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-2859; Martin v.

Woods, 121 Ohio St.3d 609, 2009-Ohio-1928, 906 N.E.2d 1113.

{¶ 4} Finally, Poole’s request for a writ of mandamus is moot.

Attached to Judge Corrigan’s motion for summary judgment is a copy of a

judgment entry, as journalized on May 25, 2011, that demonstrates a ruling

has been issued with regard to Poole’s motion to withdraw plea of guilty.

Thus, Poole has failed to establish that he is entitled to a writ of mandamus.

State v. 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.

{¶ 5} Accordingly, we grant Judge Corrigan’s motion for summary

judgment. Costs to Poole. 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.

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, JUDGE

PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, P.J., and MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR