[Cite as State ex rel. Lenard v. Russo, 2013-Ohio-829.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 99229
STATE OF OHIO EX REL., RICHARD LENARD
RELATOR
vs.
JUDGE JOHN J. RUSSO, ET AL.
RESPONDENTS
JUDGMENT:
WRIT DENIED
Writ of Procedendo
Motion No. 461110
Order No. 462403
RELEASED DATE: March 6, 2013
FOR RELATOR
Richard Lenard, Pro Se
Inmate No. 570-627
Noble Correctional Institution
15708 McConnelsville Road
Caldwell, Ohio 43724
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENTS
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: James E. Moss
Assistant County Prosecutor
9th Floor Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, P.J.:
{¶1} Richard Lenard, the relator, has filed a complaint for a writ of procedendo.
Lenard seeks an order from this court, which requires Judge John J. Russo and Judge
Nancy Fuerst, the respondents, to render rulings with regard to a “motion for return and
inspection of property,” and a “motion to vacate and/or correct multiple void sentences”
as filed in State v. Lenard, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-463837. For the following reason, we
decline to issue a writ of procedendo.
{¶2} Lenard’s motion for return and inspection of property was filed, in
CR-463837, on November 29, 2005, prior to his plea of guilty entered on December 7,
2005, to one count of receiving stolen property, two counts of tampering with records,
one count of telecommunications fraud, one count of forgery, two counts of theft, and one
count of grand theft motor vehicle. On March 16, 2006, Lenard was sentenced.
Because Lenard’s motion for return and inspection of property was filed and pending
before his plea of guilty, the motion is “deemed to be denied” upon sentencing. State ex
rel. The V Cos. v. Marshall, 81 Ohio St.3d 467, 1998-Ohio-329, 692 N.E.2d 198; Jones v.
Sutula, 8th Dist. No. 91296, 2008-Ohio-2777.
{¶3} In addition, Lenard’s request for a ruling, with regard to his pending motion
to vacate and/or correct multiple void sentences, is moot. Attached to the respondents’
motion for summary judgment is a copy of a judgment entry, as journalized on December
14, 2012, which demonstrates that a ruling has been rendered with regard to the pending
motion to vacate. Thus, the respondents have already performed their duty and once
again procedendo shall not issue on behalf of Lenard. State ex rel. Fontanella v. Kontos,
117 Ohio St.3d 514, 2008-Ohio-1431, 885 N.E.2d 220; State ex rel. Howard v. Doneghy,
102 Ohio St.3d 355, 2004-Ohio-3207, 810 N.E.2d 958, ¶ 6, quoting State ex rel., Kreps v.
Christiansen, 88 Ohio St.3d 313, 318, 725 N.E.2d 663 (2000).
{¶4} Accordingly, we grant the respondents’ motion for summary judgment.
Lenard to pay costs. The court directs the clerk of courts to serve all parties with notice
of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal as required by Civ.R. 58(B).
{¶5} Writ denied.
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, PRESIDING JUDGE
MARY BOYLE, J., and
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR