From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State ex Rel. Parker v. Russo

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County
Jun 2, 2011
2011 Ohio 2667 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011)

Opinion

No. 96722.

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: June 2, 2011.

Writ of Mandamus Motion No. 444583, Order No.

WRIT DENIED.

Michael Parker, Jr., Pro Se, Inmate No. 572-106, for Relator.

Judge John Russo, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecutor, James E. Moss, Assistant County Prosecutor, for Respondent.

BEFORE: Blackmon, P.J., Boyle, J., and Celebrezze, J.


JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION


{¶ 1} Michael Parker, Jr. has filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus. Parker seeks an order from this court, that requires Judge John Russo to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law with regard to a motion for post-conviction relief, as filed in State v. Parker, Jr., Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-521078. Judge Russo has filed a motion for summary judgment, which we grant for the following reasons.

{¶ 2} Initially, we find that Parker's complaint for a writ of mandamus is defective for failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C), which mandates that an inmate, who files a complaint against a government entity or government employee, must support the complaint with a statement that: (1) sets forth the balance in the inmate's account for the preceding six months, as certified by the institutional cashier; and (2) a statement that sets forth all other cash and items of value as owned by the inmate. The failure of Parker to support his complaint with a statement of the balance contained within his institutional account, as certified by the institutional cashier, warrants dismissal. Martin v. Woods, 121 Ohio St.3d 609, 2009-Ohio-1928, 906 N.E.2d 1113; Clarke v. McFaul, Cuyahoga App. No. 89447, 2007-Ohio-2520.

{¶ 3} Notwithstanding the aforesaid procedural defect, we find that Parker's request for a writ of mandamus is moot. On June 1, 2010, Judge Russo denied Parker's petition for post-conviction relief. In addition, Judge Russo's judgment entry fulfilled the mandatory requirement of "findings of fact and conclusions of law" under R.C. 2953.21. The entry of June 1, 2010, apprised Parker of the grounds for the judgment and would enable an appellate court to review the judgment on appeal. State ex rel. Carrion v. Harris (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 19, 530 N.E.2d 1330; State v. Mapson (1982), 1 Ohio St.3d 217, 438 N.E.2d 910; State v. Lester (1975), 41 Ohio St.2d 51, 322 N.E.2d 656.

{¶ 4} Accordingly, we grant Judge Russo's motion for summary judgment. Costs to Parker. 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.

MARY J. BOYLE, J., and FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J., CONCUR


Summaries of

State ex Rel. Parker v. Russo

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County
Jun 2, 2011
2011 Ohio 2667 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011)
Case details for

State ex Rel. Parker v. Russo

Case Details

Full title:State of Ohio, ex rel., Michael Parker, Jr., Relator, v. The Honorable…

Court:Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County

Date published: Jun 2, 2011

Citations

2011 Ohio 2667 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011)