State ex rel. Stuart v. Villanueva

2014 Ohio 1440

Opinion

[Cite as State ex rel. Stuart v. Villanueva, 2014-Ohio-1440.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 100758

STATE EX REL. BILLY STUART

RELATOR

vs.

JUDGE JOSE VILLANUEVA

RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED

Writ of Mandamus Motion No. 471393 Order No. 472324

RELEASE DATE: March 28, 2014 FOR RELATOR

Billy Stuart, pro se Inmate No. 601-509 P.O. Box 8000 Conneaut, OH 44030

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT

Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: James E. Moss Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Justice Center - 9th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, OH 44113 ii

KENNETH A. ROCCO, J.:

{¶1} On December 16, 2013, the relator, Billy Stuart, commenced this mandamus

action against the respondent, Judge Jose Villanueva, to compel the judge to state the number

of jail-time credit days in a journal entry in the underlying case, State v. Stuart, Cuyahoga

C.P. No. CR-537870. On

January 13, 2014, the respondent moved for summary judgment on the grounds of

mootness. 1 Attached to the dispositive motion was a certified copy of a signed and

file-stamped January 9, 2014 journal entry granting 327 days of jail-time credit. Stuart did

not file a response to the summary judgment motion. This establishes that the relator has

received his requested relief and that the action is, therefore, moot.

{¶2} Relator also did not comply with R.C. 2969.25(C) that requires that an inmate

file a certified statement from his prison cashier setting forth the balance in his private account

for each of the preceding six months. This also is sufficient reason to deny the mandamus,

deny indigency status, and assess costs against the relator. State ex rel. Pamer v. Collier,

1 The January 13, 2014 summary judgment motion is an amended motion. Previously, the respondent had filed a summary judgment motion several hours earlier — Motion No. 471379; the court denies that motion as moot. 108 Ohio St.3d 492, 2006-Ohio-1507, 844 N.E.2d 842; and Hazel v. Knab, 130 Ohio St.3d 22,

2011-Ohio-4608, 955 N.E.2d 378.

{¶3} Accordingly, the court grants the respondent’s motion for summary judgment

and denies the application for a writ of mandamus. Relator to pay costs. This court directs

the clerk of court to serve all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the

journal as required by Civ.R. 58(B).

{¶4} Writ denied.

________________________________________ KENNETH A. ROCCO, JUDGE

LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J., and TIM McCORMACK, J., CONCUR