State ex rel. Sands v. Culotta

Ohio Court of Appeals

State ex rel. Sands v. Culotta

2019 Ohio 272

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 28, 2019

Docket2018-P-0008

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 2019 Ohio 272 (State ex rel. Sands v. Culotta) 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. Sands v. Culotta, 2019 Ohio 272 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

[Cite as State ex rel. Sands v. Culotta, 2019-Ohio-272.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

LAKE COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO ex rel. : OPINION JOSEPH A. SANDS, : Relator, : CASE NO. 2018-L-109 - vs - : LAKE COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT, JUDGE VINCENT A. CULOTTA, et al., :

Respondents. :

Original Action for Writ of Mandamus.

Judgment: Petition dismissed.

Joseph A. Sands, pro se, PID: A664-601, Marion Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 57, 940 Marion-Williamsport Road, Marion, OH 43301 (Relator).

Charles Coulson, Lake County Prosecutor, and Michael DeLeone, Assistant Prosecutor, Lake County Administration Building, 105 Main Street, P.O. Box 490, Painesville, OH 44077 (For Respondents).

COLLEEN MARY O’TOOLE, J.

{¶1} Relator, Joseph A. Sands, petitions this court to issue a writ of mandamus

directed to respondents, the Honorable Vincent A. Culotta, Judge of the Lake County

Court of Common Pleas, and Charles E Coulson, Lake County Prosecuting Attorney.

Judge Culotta presided at the trial of relator, where a jury convicted him of plotting to

murder the judge of the Painesville Municipal Court, and various officials of the Village of North Perry, Ohio. Relator is serving a lengthy prison term. Relator evidently contends

that respondent did not properly merge various of his convictions at sentencing.

Respondents have moved to dismiss, or for summary judgment. Relator has filed a reply

brief.

{¶2} Relator has raised this argument many, many times before, and we have

always found it lacks merit. We have told relator that it is substantively untrue, and that

having been raised before, is barre by res judicata. It remains substantively untrue, and

barred by res judicata.

{¶3} The motion to dismiss, or for summary judgment, is granted. All pending

motions are hereby overruled.

THOMAS R. WRIGHT, P.J., concurs,

DIANE V. GRENDELL, J., concurs in judgment only.

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