State ex rel. Whittington v. Sutula

2023 Ohio 1486

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 2, 2023
• Docket: 112537
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State ex rel. Whittington v. Sutula, 2023-Ohio-1486.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE EX REL. DARRYL M. WHITTINGTON, :

Relator, : No. 112537 v. :

JUDGE JOHN D. SUTULA, :

Respondent. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED DATED: May 2, 2023

Writ of Mandamus Motion No. 563286 Order No. 563916

Appearances:

Darryl M. Whittington, pro se.

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and James E. Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent.

EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J.:

Relator, Darryl M. Whittington, seeks a writ of mandamus directing

respondent, Judge John D. Sutula, to award 940 days of jail-time credit pursuant to motions relator filed in two criminal cases over which respondent presided. Because

respondent has ruled on the pending motions, relator has received all the relief in

this action to which he is entitled. This renders the claim for relief in mandamus

moot. Respondent’s motion for summary judgment is granted, and the request for

writ of mandamus is denied.

I. Background

Relator filed a complaint for writ of mandamus on March 22, 2023.

There, he alleged that he was convicted and sentenced in two criminal cases, State

v. Whittington, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-13-571721-B, and State v. Whittington,

Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-13-575429-A. The sentencing entry in CR-13-571721-B, the

only one attached to relator’s complaint, awarded relator 455 days of jail-time credit.

Relator has asserted that he is entitled to a total of 940 days of credit and has filed

motions over the years asserting the same. According to the complaint, on

November 28, 2022, he filed motions for jail-time credit in both cases. At the time

the complaint was filed, no rulings on the motions had been journalized. Relator

asked this court to order respondent to rule on these motions and sought an order

from this court directing respondent to award the full amount of credit requested.

On March 31, 2023, respondent filed a motion for summary judgment.

There, respondent argued that rulings had been journalized on both motions on

March 30, 2023, awarding 467 days of credit in CR-13-571721-B and 465 days of

credit in CR-13-575429-A. Certified copies of these entries were attached to the

motion for summary judgment, and the entries were further authenticated by an affidavit from a Cuyahoga County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney. Respondent

argued that as a result of these entries, relator’s action has become moot. Relator

did not timely respond to the motion for summary judgment.

II. Law and Analysis

A. Requirements for Writ of Mandamus

A writ of mandamus may be issued when relators show by clear and

convincing evidence that they have a right to the requested relief, that respondent

has a legal duty to provide the relief, and that relators possess no adequate remedy

at law. State ex rel. Culgan v. Collier, 135 Ohio St.3d 436, 2013-Ohio-1762, 988

N.E.2d 564, ¶ 7, citing State ex rel. Taxpayers for Westerville Schools v. Franklin

Cty. Bd. of Elections, 133 Ohio St.3d 153, 2012-Ohio-4267, 976 N.E.2d 890, ¶ 12.

“[M]andamus will lie when a trial court has refused to render, or unduly delayed

rendering, a judgment.” State ex rel. Reynolds v. Basinger, 99 Ohio St.3d 303,

2003-Ohio-3631, 791 N.E.2d 459, ¶ 5.

The case is before this court on respondent’s motion for summary

judgment. Pursuant to Civ.R. 56(C), summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith

if, after viewing all evidence most strongly in favor of the nonmoving party, “the

pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits,

transcripts of evidence, and written stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in the

action, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the

moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” See also Dresher v. Burt,

75 Ohio St.3d 280, 292-293, 662 N.E.2d 264 (1996). B. Mootness

A claim for writ of mandamus may be rendered moot when the

available relief is attained. Patterson v. Cuyahoga Cty. Common Pleas Court, 8th

Dist. Cuyahoga No. 107755, 2019-Ohio-110, ¶ 11, citing State ex rel. Jerninghan v.

Court of Common Pleas, 74 Ohio St.3d 278, 658 N.E.2d 723 (1996). Mandamus

may not be used to compel the performance of a duty that has already been

performed. Martin v. Judges of the Lucas Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 50 Ohio

St.3d 71, 72, 552 N.E.2d 906 (1990), citing State ex rel. Breaux v. Court of Common

Pleas, 50 Ohio St. 2d 164, 363 N.E. 2d 743 (1977).

Here, respondent has ruled on the motions for jail-time credit that were

pending in relator’s criminal cases. This is all the relief that relator may attain in the

present action. This court may not direct respondent to award a certain amount of

jail-time credit when the Supreme Court of Ohio has held that “[a]lleged errors

regarding an award of jail-time credit are not cognizable in mandamus[.]” State ex

rel. Sands v. Culotta, 165 Ohio St.3d 172, 2021-Ohio-1137, 176 N.E.3d 735, ¶ 12. This

is because “the inmate may raise that issue in his direct appeal of his criminal

conviction, State ex rel. Rankin v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 98 Ohio St. 3d 476,

2003-Ohio-2061, 786 N.E.2d 1286, ¶10, or in a postsentence motion to correct jail-

time credit pursuant to R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(iii).” Id. The resolution of a motion

for jail-time credit results in a final, appealable order capable of appellate review.

State v. Thompson, 147 Ohio St.3d 29, 2016-Ohio-2769, 59 N.E.3d 1264, ¶ 13. This

constitutes an adequate remedy at law, precluding relief in mandamus. Therefore, any error in the amount of jail-time credit awarded by respondent cannot be

addressed in the present action.

Respondent’s motion for summary judgment is granted. Relator’s

request for writ of mandamus is denied as moot. Costs to respondent; costs waived.

The clerk is directed to serve on the parties notice of this judgment and its date of

entry upon the journal. Civ.R. 58(B).

Writ denied.

EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, JUDGE

FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, P.J., and KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR