[Cite as State ex rel. Haines v. Sutula, 2011-Ohio-1968.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 96429
STATE OF OHIO, EX REL.,
ANDREW HAINES
RELATOR
vs.
JUDGE JOHN D. SUTULA
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT:
WRIT DENIED
Writ of Mandamus
Motion No. 442829
Order No. 442882
RELEASE DATE: April 15, 2011
FOR RELATOR
Andrew Haines
Inmate No. 583246
Oakwood Correctional Facility
3200 North West Road
Lima, Ohio 45801
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
William D. Mason
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: James E. Moss
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
The Justice Center, 8 Floor
ht
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
LARRY A. JONES, J.:
{¶ 1} Andrew Haines has filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus.
Haines seeks an order from this court, which requires Judge John Sutula to
render rulings with regard to motions for jail-time credit as filed in the
criminal cases of State v. Haines, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case Nos. CR-484358, CR-482605, CR-480823, CR-520884, and CR-525108.
Haines also seeks an order, which requires Judge Sutula to issue findings of
fact and conclusions of law upon disposition of the motions for jail-time credit.
Judge Sutula has filed a motion for summary judgment, which we grant for
the following reasons.
{¶ 2} Attached to the Judge Sutula’s motion for summary judgment are
copies of journal entries, as journalized on March 11, 2011, which
demonstrates that Haines has been granted jail-time credit in the amount of
555 days. Haines’ request for mandamus is thus moot. State ex rel.
Jerninghan v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 74 Ohio St.3d 278,
1996-Ohio-117, 658 N.E.2d 723; State ex rel. Gantt v. Coleman (1983), 6 Ohio
St.3d 5, 450 N.E.2d 1163.
{¶ 3} In addition, Judge Sutula possesses no duty to issue findings of
fact and conclusions of law upon issuing a ruling with regard to the motions
for jail-time credit. State ex rel. Hudson v. Sutula (Jan. 14, 2011), Cuyahoga
App. No. 96247; State ex rel. Jefferson v. Russo, Cuyahoga App. No. 90682,
2008-Ohio-135.
{¶ 4} Accordingly, we grant Judge Sutula’s motion for summary
judgment. Costs to Sutula. It is further ordered that the Clerk of the
Eighth District Court of Appeals serve notice of this judgment upon all
parties as required by Civ.R. 58(B).
Writ denied.
LARRY A. JONES, JUDGE
MARY J. BOYLE, P.J., and
KENNETH A. ROCCO, J., CONCUR