From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Relator v. Saffold

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
Oct 30, 2020
2020 Ohio 5194 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020)

Opinion

No. 109920

10-30-2020

RELATOR, WALTER TRIPLETT, Relator, v. SHIRLEY STRICKLAND SAFFOLD, Respondent.

Appearances: Walter Triplett, pro se. Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and James E. Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent.


JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED Writ of Mandamus
Motion No. 541258
Order No. 541877

Appearances:

Walter Triplett, pro se. Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and James E. Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent. LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J.:

{¶ 1} On August 31, 2020, the relator, Walter Triplett, commenced this mandamus action against the respondent, Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold, to compel the judge to grant him two years and 92 days of jail-time credit in the underlying cases, State v. Triplett, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-09-523894-A and CR-11-554247-A. On September 21, 2020, the respondent judge, through the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor, moved for summary judgment on the grounds of mootness and procedural defects. Triplett did not file a response. For the following reasons, this court grants the respondent's motion for summary judgment and denies the application for a writ of mandamus.

{¶ 2} Triplett avers that he has been incarcerated since April 30, 2009, when he was arrested for State v. Triplett, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-09-523894-A. That case was dismissed on October 25, 2011, and the grand jury reindicted him in State v. Triplett, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-11-554247-A. Nevertheless, he was in jail continuously, until he was convicted of involuntary manslaughter with a repeat violent offender specification and sentenced to twenty years. Thus, he concludes that he is entitled to two years and 92 days of jail-time credit. He further avers that he has filed three motions for jail-time credit, but has been granted a total of only 96 days. He asserts that he was denied his right to appeal because notice of the journal entries were sent to the wrong address. Therefore, he claims that he does not have an adequate remedy at law.

{¶ 3} Attached to the respondent judge's summary judgment motion is a copy of a certified September 18, 2020 journal entry in which the judge granted Triplett 232 days of jail-time credit in both cases. The judge argues that this ruling renders the mandamus action moot.

{¶ 4} The requisites for mandamus are well-established: (1) the relator must have a clear legal right to the requested relief, (2) the respondent must have a clear legal duty to perform the requested relief and (3) there must be no adequate remedy at law. Additionally, although mandamus may be used to compel a court to exercise judgment or to discharge a function, it may not control judicial discretion, even if that discretion is grossly abused. State ex rel. Ney v. Niehaus, 33 Ohio St.3d 118, 515 N.E.2d 914 (1987). Furthermore, mandamus is not a substitute for appeal. State ex rel. Daggett v. Gessaman, 34 Ohio St.2d 55, 295 N.E.2d 659 (1973); State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm. of Ohio, 11 Ohio St.2d 141, 228 N.E.2d 631 (1967), paragraph three of the syllabus. Thus, mandamus does not lie to correct errors and procedural irregularities in the course of a case. State ex rel. Jerninghan v. Gaughan, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 67787, 1994 Ohio App. LEXIS 6227 (Sept. 26, 1994). Furthermore, if the relator had an adequate remedy, regardless of whether it was used, relief in mandamus is precluded. State ex rel. Tran v. McGrath, 78 Ohio St.3d 45, 1997-Ohio-245, 676 N.E.2d 108; State ex rel. Boardwalk Shopping Ctr., Inc. v. Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga Cty., 56 Ohio St.3d 33, 564 N.E.2d 86 (1990). Moreover, mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is to be exercised with caution and only when the right is clear. It should not issue in doubtful cases. State ex rel. Taylor v. Glasser, 50 Ohio St.2d 165, 364 N.E.2d 1 (1977).

{¶ 5} In the present case, mandamus will not lie to compel the respondent judge to award a specific amount of jail-time credit because that would control judicial discretion. Moreover, the judge has issued a new entry granting Triplett much more jail-time credit. The new journal entry renders this mandamus action moot. If Triplett is still dissatisfied, his remedy is to file an appeal. "[A]ny error that is alleged with regard to the calculation of jail-time credit must be addressed through a direct appeal." State ex rel. Triplett v. Donnelly, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102152, 2015-Ohio-323, ¶ 2.

{¶ 6} Triplett's petition is defective because it is improperly captioned. He styled this petition as "Relator, Walter Triplett v. Shirley Strickland-Saffold." R.C. 2731.04 requires that an application for a writ of mandamus "must be by petition, in the name of the state on the relation of the person applying." This failure to properly caption a mandamus action is sufficient grounds for denying the writ and dismissing the petition. Maloney v. Court of Common Pleas of Allen Cty., 173 Ohio St. 226, 181 N.E.2d 270 (1962). The court further notes that Triplett did not include the addresses of the parties as required by Civ.R. 10.

{¶ 7} Accordingly, this court grants the respondent's motion for summary judgment and denies the application for a writ of mandamus. Relator to pay costs. The court instructs the clerk to serve upon the parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. Civ.R. 58(B).

{¶ 8} Writ denied. /s/_________
LARRY A. JONES, SR., PRESIDING JUDGE KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., and
RAYMOND C. HEADEN, J., CONCUR


Summaries of

Relator v. Saffold

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
Oct 30, 2020
2020 Ohio 5194 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020)
Case details for

Relator v. Saffold

Case Details

Full title:RELATOR, WALTER TRIPLETT, Relator, v. SHIRLEY STRICKLAND SAFFOLD…

Court:COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

Date published: Oct 30, 2020

Citations

2020 Ohio 5194 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020)