State ex rel. Ventra v. Bozza
This text of 2014 Ohio 3732 (State ex rel. Ventra v. Bozza) 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.
Opinion
[Cite as State ex rel. Ventra v. Bozza, 2014-Ohio-3732.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 101499
STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. CHARLES W. VENTRA
RELATOR
vs.
JUDGE MARY KAYE BOZZA, ET AL. RESPONDENTS
JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED
Writ of Mandamus Motion No. 477657 Order No. 477781
RELEASE DATE: August 27, 2014 FOR RELATOR
Charles W. Ventra, pro se Inmate No. 633-324 Mansfield Correctional Institution P.O. Box 8107 Mansfield, Ohio 44901
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENTS
Michael E. Cicero 25 West Prospect Avenue Republic Building, Suite 1400 Cleveland, Ohio 44115 EILEEN T GALLAGHER, J.:
{¶1} Charles W. Ventra has filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus. Ventra
seeks an order from this court that requires Judge Mary Kaye Bozza to dismiss Lyndhurst
M. C. No. MH-12-10706 based upon the application of R.C. 2941.401 (prisoner may
request trial on pending charges). The request for a writ of mandamus is denied.
{¶2} Attached to Judge Bozza’s motion for summary judgment are two sworn
affidavits that establish (1) there exists no pending criminal actions in the Lyndhurst
Municipal Court that name Ventra as a defendant, and (2) the arrest warrant of Ventra
that was issued in connection with Mayfield Heights Police Department incident number
12-10706, was recalled on or about May 15, 2014, and was removed from “LEADS,”
based upon a request by a City of Mayfield Heights prosecutor. It must also be noted
that mandamus may not be employed to enforce the dismissal of a criminal proceeding
pursuant to R.C. 2941.401. Tisdale v. Eberlin, 114 Ohio St.3d 201, 2007-Ohio-3833,
870 N.E.2d 1191; State ex rel. Bowling v. Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton Cty., 24
Ohio St.2d 158, 265 N.E.2d 296 (1970); State v. Latham, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 92284,
2009-Ohio-126. Thus, Ventra has failed to establish that he is entitled to a writ of
mandamus by his request to dismiss the pending criminal action pursuant to R.C.
2941.401. State ex rel. Jerninghan v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 74 Ohio
St.3d 278, 658 N.E.2d 723; State ex rel. Gantt v. Coleman, 6 Ohio St.3d 5, 450 N.E.2d
1163 (1983).
{¶3} Writ denied. {¶4} Accordingly, we grant Judge Bozza’s motion for summary judgment. Costs
to Judge Bozza. Costs waived. The court directs the clerk of courts to serve all parties
with notice of this judgment and the date of its entry upon the journal as required by
Civ.R. 58(B).
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, P.J., and MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., CONCUR
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2014 Ohio 3732, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-ventra-v-bozza-ohioctapp-2014.