[Cite as State ex rel. Torrestoro v. Donnelly, 2011-Ohio-4832.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 97050
STATE OF OHIO, EX REL.
ANGEL TORRESTORO
RELATOR
vs.
HON. MICHAEL P. DONNELLY, JUDGE
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT:
WRIT DENIED
Writ of Procedendo
Motion No. 446863
Order No. 447551
RELEASE DATE: September 19, 2011
FOR RELATOR
Angel Torrestoro, pro se
Inmate No. A591-758
Richland Correctional Institution
1001 Olivesburg Road
P.O. Box 8107
Mansfield, Ohio 44901
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT
William D. Mason
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: James E. Moss
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
The Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., P.J.:
{¶ 1} On July 18, 2011, relator, Angel Torrestoro, commenced this
mandamus action to compel the respondent judge to rule on a postconviction
relief petition, which Torrestoro filed on January 6, 2011 in the underlying
case, State v. Angel Torrestoro, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Case
No. CR-539287. Torrestoro also seeks a ruling on his motion to vacate a fine
in the underlying case, which he claims he filed shortly after filing the
postconviction relief petition. On August 12, 2011, respondent moved for
summary judgment on the grounds of mootness. Attached to the dispositive
motion was a copy of a journal entry, signed and file-stamped August 12,
2011, containing the findings of fact and conclusions of law denying
Torrestoro’s petition. 1 Respondent also noted that the docket for the
underlying case showed no motion to vacate a fine. Torrestoro never filed a
brief in opposition. For the following reasons, this court grants respondent’s
motion for summary judgment.
{¶ 2} The findings of fact and conclusions of law deny the
postconviction relief petition. The journal entry establishes that the trial
court has fulfilled its duty to issue the findings of fact and conclusions of law
and that Torrestoro has received his requested relief, a resolution of his
postconviction relief petition. Because this court’s independent review of the
docket confirms that no motion to vacate the fine has been filed and because
Torrestoro did not dispute the motion for summary judgment, this court
denies the application for a writ of procedendo on the “motion to vacate fine”
claim.
{¶ 3} To the extent that there is any irregularity regarding which trial
court judge issued the ruling, that issue is properly addressed on appeal,
rather than through an extraordinary writ. State ex rel. Berger v.
Judge Ronald Suster signed the findings of fact and conclusions of law, although Judge
1
Michael Donnelly is the judge assigned to the underlying case and the named respondent.
McMonagle (1993), 6 Ohio St.3d 28, 451 N.E.2d 225, certiorari denied (1983),
469 U.S. 1017, 104 S.Ct. 1983, 78 L.Ed2d 723; and State ex rel. Novak v.
Boyle, Cuyahoga App. No. 85358, 2005-Ohio-1199.
{¶ 4} Accordingly, the court grants respondent’s motion for summary
judgment and denies the application for a writ of procedendo. Parties to
bear their own costs. The clerk is directed to serve upon the parties notice of
this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. Civ.R. 58(B).
Writ denied.
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE
JAMES J. SWEENEY, J., and
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR