Warren v. Ohio
This text of 2018 Ohio 4212 (Warren v. Ohio) 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 Warren v. Ohio, 2018-Ohio-4212.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 107387
DERRICK L. WARREN
RELATOR
vs.
STATE OF OHIO
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED
Writ of Mandamus Motion No. 520743 Order No. 521512
RELEASE DATE: October 17, 2018
FOR RELATOR Warren L. Derrick, pro se Inmate No 621655 P.O. Box 56 Lebanon, Ohio 45036
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT
Michael C. O’Malley Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: James E. Moss Assistant County Prosecutor The Justice Center, 8th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J.: {¶1} Derrick L. Warren has filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus. Warren seeks an
order that requires a ruling with regard to a motion to withdraw guilty plea filed in State v. Warren,
Cuyahoga C.P. Case No. CR-11-551985-A. For the following reasons, we deny Warren’s request for
a writ of mandamus and grant the motion for summary judgment filed by the Cuyahoga County
Prosecutor.
{¶2} Initially, we find that the complaint is defective because it is improperly captioned.
Warren styled this action as “Derrick L. Warren v. State of Ohio.” Pursuant to R.C. 2731.04, a
complaint for a writ of mandamus must be brought in the name of the state on relation of the person
applying and cannot be captioned as a motion. Rust v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 108 Ohio St.3d
139, 2005-Ohio-5795, 841 N.E.2d 766; State ex rel. Simms v. Sutula, 81 Ohio St.3d 110, 689 N.E.2d
564 (1998); Maloney v. Court of Common Pleas of Allen Cty., 173 Ohio St. 226, 181 N.E.2d 270
(1962). Warren has also failed to comply with Civ.R. 10(A), which requires that the complaint must
include the addresses of all parties. Bandy v. Villanueva, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 96866, 2011-Ohio-
4831.
{¶3} In addition, Warren’s complaint is procedurally defective because he has failed to
comply with R.C. 2969.25(A) and 2969.25(C). Pursuant to R.C. 2969.25(A), an inmate that
commences a civil action against a government entity or employee must file a sworn affidavit that
contains a description of each civil action or appeal of a civil action filed in the previous five years in
any state or federal court. State ex rel. McGrath v. McDonnell, 126 Ohio St.3d 511, 2010-Ohio-
4726, 935 N.E.2d 830. R.C. 2969.25(C)(1) requires that Warren file a statement setting forth his
inmate account balance “for each of the preceding six months as certified by the institutional
cashier.” Warren has failed to provide this court with a notarized affidavit that describes previously
filed civil actions and a certified statement setting forth the balance in his inmate account. Freed v. Bova, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99908, 2013-Ohio-4378; Turner v. Russo, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.
87852, 2006-Ohio-4490.
{¶4} Finally, attached to the motion for summary judgment are copies of judgment entries,
journalized on August 2, 2018, and August 28, 2018, that demonstrate Warren’s motion to withdraw
his plea of guilty has been denied. Thus, Warren’s request for a writ of mandamus is moot.
“[R]elief is unwarranted because mandamus * * * will not compel the performance of a duty that has
already been performed.” State ex rel. Hopson v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 135 Ohio
St.3d 456, 2013-Ohio-1911, 989 N.E.2d 49, ¶ 4. Also, mandamus may not be employed to control
judicial discretion and compel the trial court judge to grant a motion to withdraw guilty plea.
Thompson v. State, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99265, 2013-Ohio-1907.
{¶5} Accordingly, we grant the motion for summary judgment. 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).
{¶6} Writ denied.
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, JUDGE
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, A.J., and MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2018 Ohio 4212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/warren-v-ohio-ohioctapp-2018.