[Cite as State ex rel. Mason v. Matia, 2011-Ohio-3068.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 95866
STATE OF OHIO, EX REL.,
WILLIAM D. MASON,
CUYAHOGA COUNTY PROSECUTOR
RELATOR
vs.
HONORABLE JUDGE DAVID T. MATIA
CUYAHOGA COUNTY COURT
OF COMMON PLEAS
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT:
WRITS DENIED
Writs of Mandamus and Procendendo
Motion No. 445353
Order No. 445354
RELEASE DATE: June 21, 2011
FOR RELATOR
William D. Mason
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: Matthew E. Meyer
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
The Justice Center, 8 Floor
ht
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
Michael P. Maloney
24441 Detroit Road
Suite 300
Westlake, Ohio 44145
LARRY A. JONES, J.:
{¶ 1} The relator, Cuyahoga County Prosecutor William Mason, commenced this
mandamus and/or procedendo action against the respondent, Judge David T. Matia, to compel
the judge to issue in the underlying case, State v. Hatfield, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas
Court Case No. CR-532633, a journal entry reflecting his decision to grant a motion in limine
excluding an audio tape of an alleged drug transaction.
{¶ 2} A review of the docket in the underlying case shows that on May 13, 2011, the
respondent issued the following journal entry in the underlying case: “Corrected entry of
August 24, 2010: Defendant’s motion in limine is granted. Defendant sought to deny the state
the opportunity to introduce and/or [sic] the tape recording made by the confidential informant
during his alleged drug buy from the claimed defendant. The State of Ohio refused to identify
the confidential informant during the discovery process and assured the court during a pre-trial
conference that they would not be calling the confidential informant as a witness. As a result,
the court granted the defendant’s motion in limine.”
{¶ 3} This entry established that the relator has received his requested relief, a journal
entry granting the motion in limine. Accordingly, this writ action is moot, and the court, sua
sponte, dismisses this application for a writ of mandamus and/or precedendo. Costs assessed
against the respondent. The court directs the Clerk of Court of the Eighth District Court of
Appeals to serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal.
Civ.R. 58(B).
LARRY A. JONES, JUDGE
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, A.J., and
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J., CONCUR