Opinion
No. 95866.
RELEASE DATE: June 21, 2011.
Writs of Mandamus and Procendendo, Motion No. 445353, Order No. 445354.
WRITS DENIED.
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecutor, BY: Matthew E. Meyer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, For Relator.
Michael P. Maloney, Attorney for Respondent.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
{¶ 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).
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, A.J., and FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J., CONCUR.