State ex rel. Taylor v. Leffler

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Taylor v. Leffler

2000 Ohio 289, 88 Ohio St. 3d 178

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 7, 2000

Docket1999-1733

StatusPublished

This text of 2000 Ohio 289 (State ex rel. Taylor v. Leffler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State ex rel. Taylor v. Leffler, 2000 Ohio 289, 88 Ohio St. 3d 178 (Ohio 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 88 Ohio St.3d 178.]

[THE STATE EX REL.] TAYLOR, APPELLANT, v. LEFFLER, PROS. ATTY., ET AL., APPELLEES. [Cite as State ex rel. Taylor v. Leffler, 2000-Ohio-289.] Mandamus to compel respondent to provide relator certain information and records relating to his criminal proceedings—Denial of writ affirmed. (No. 99-1733—Submitted January 11, 2000—Decided March 8, 2000.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Huron County, No. H-99-014. __________________ {¶ 1} In 1995 and 1996, appellant, Larry Taylor, was convicted of kidnapping, rape, felonious sexual penetration, felonious assault, and burglary, and sentenced to prison. {¶ 2} In May 1999, Taylor filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for Huron County for a writ of mandamus to compel appellees, Huron County Prosecuting Attorney Russell V. Leffler, the Clerk of Courts of the Huron County Court of Common Pleas, the Clerk of the Norwalk Municipal Court, former Norwalk Law Director Daniel Kasaris, and Huron County Public Defender George Ford, to provide certain information and records related to relator’s criminal proceedings. Respondents filed affidavits establishing that they had provided Taylor with all of the requested records and information to the extent that they existed. The court of appeals denied the writ. {¶ 3} This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. __________________ Larry Taylor, pro se. __________________ SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Per Curiam. {¶ 4} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the reasons stated in its opinion. A writ of mandamus will not issue to compel an act already performed. State ex rel. Sharif v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 375, 376, 708 N.E.2d 718, 719. And appellees had no duty to create documents to meet Taylor’s requests. State ex rel. Warren v. Warner (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 432, 433, 704 N.E.2d 1228, 1229. Judgment affirmed. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. __________________

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

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 88 Ohio St.3d 178.]

[THE STATE EX REL.] TAYLOR, APPELLANT, v. LEFFLER, PROS. ATTY., ET AL., APPELLEES. [Cite as State ex rel. Taylor v. Leffler, 2000-Ohio-289.] Mandamus to compel respondent to provide relator certain information and records relating to his criminal proceedings—Denial of writ affirmed. (No. 99-1733—Submitted January 11, 2000—Decided March 8, 2000.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Huron County, No. H-99-014. __________________ {¶ 1} In 1995 and 1996, appellant, Larry Taylor, was convicted of kidnapping, rape, felonious sexual penetration, felonious assault, and burglary, and sentenced to prison. {¶ 2} In May 1999, Taylor filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for Huron County for a writ of mandamus to compel appellees, Huron County Prosecuting Attorney Russell V. Leffler, the Clerk of Courts of the Huron County Court of Common Pleas, the Clerk of the Norwalk Municipal Court, former Norwalk Law Director Daniel Kasaris, and Huron County Public Defender George Ford, to provide certain information and records related to relator’s criminal proceedings. Respondents filed affidavits establishing that they had provided Taylor with all of the requested records and information to the extent that they existed. The court of appeals denied the writ. {¶ 3} This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. __________________ Larry Taylor, pro se. __________________ SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Per Curiam. {¶ 4} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the reasons stated in its opinion. A writ of mandamus will not issue to compel an act already performed. State ex rel. Sharif v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 375, 376, 708 N.E.2d 718, 719. And appellees had no duty to create documents to meet Taylor’s requests. State ex rel. Warren v. Warner (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 432, 433, 704 N.E.2d 1228, 1229. Judgment affirmed. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2000 Ohio 289, 88 Ohio St. 3d 178, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-taylor-v-leffler-ohio-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack