State v. Sutula, Unpublished Decision (5-6-1999)

Ohio Court of Appeals

State v. Sutula, Unpublished Decision (5-6-1999)

DecidedMay 6, 1999

DocketNo. 76114

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Sutula, Unpublished Decision (5-6-1999) (State v. Sutula, Unpublished Decision (5-6-1999)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law.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State v. Sutula, Unpublished Decision (5-6-1999), (Ohio Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

On March 9, 1999, the relator, Larry Stewart, commenced this mandamus action against the respondent, the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, to compel the issuance of findings of fact and conclusions of law for a postconviction relief petition which Mr. Stewart filed in the underlying case, State of Ohio v. LarryStewart, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Case No. CR-340429. On March 22, 1999, the respondent, through the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor, moved for summary judgment on the grounds of mootness. Attached to the dispositive motion was a copy of a certified, signed journal entry, file-stamped March 10, 1999, containing the requisite findings of fact and conclusions of law for Mr. Stewart's petition. This attachment establishes that the court has fulfilled its duty to issue the findings of fact and conclusions of law and that Mr. Stewart has received the relief he has requested, a resolution of his postconviction petition. Mr. Stewart never filed a response to the dispositive motion.

Accordingly, this mandamus action is moot, the motion for summary judgment is granted, and this writ action is dismissed.

Respondent to pay costs.

ANN DYKE, J., CONCURS

___________________________________ JAMES M. PORTER, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

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

On March 9, 1999, the relator, Larry Stewart, commenced this mandamus action against the respondent, the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, to compel the issuance of findings of fact and conclusions of law for a postconviction relief petition which Mr. Stewart filed in the underlying case, State of Ohio v. LarryStewart, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Case No. CR-340429. On March 22, 1999, the respondent, through the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor, moved for summary judgment on the grounds of mootness. Attached to the dispositive motion was a copy of a certified, signed journal entry, file-stamped March 10, 1999, containing the requisite findings of fact and conclusions of law for Mr. Stewart's petition. This attachment establishes that the court has fulfilled its duty to issue the findings of fact and conclusions of law and that Mr. Stewart has received the relief he has requested, a resolution of his postconviction petition. Mr. Stewart never filed a response to the dispositive motion.

Accordingly, this mandamus action is moot, the motion for summary judgment is granted, and this writ action is dismissed.

Respondent to pay costs.

ANN DYKE, J., CONCURS

___________________________________ JAMES M. PORTER, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Sutula, Unpublished Decision (5-6-1999), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-sutula-unpublished-decision-5-6-1999-ohioctapp-1999.