Opinion
No. 102719
07-22-2015
STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. DEMETRIUS WOMACK RELATOR v. JUDGE SHIRLEY STRICKLAND SAFFOLD RESPONDENT
FOR RELATOR Demetrius Womack, pro se Inmate #632096 Grafton Reintegration Center 2500 S. Avon Belden Road Grafton, OH 44044 ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: James E. Moss Assistant County Prosecutor The Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, OH 44113
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED Writ of Procedendo
Motion No. 484369
Order No. 486905
FOR RELATOR Demetrius Womack, pro se
Inmate #632096 Grafton Reintegration Center
2500 S. Avon Belden Road
Grafton, OH 44044
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: James E. Moss
Assistant County Prosecutor
The Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, OH 44113
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, P.J.:
{¶1} On March 11, 2015, the relator, Demetrius Womack, commenced this procedendo action against the respondent, Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold, to compel the judge to rule on Crim.R. 36 motions to correct clerical error that Womack filed on February 28, 2014, in the underlying cases, State v. Womack, Cuyahoga C.P. Nos. CR-12-561502-A and CR-12-562461-A. On April 7, 2015, the respondent, through the Cuyahoga County prosecutor, moved for summary judgment on the grounds of mootness and pleading defects. Womack never filed a response. For the following reasons, this court grants the judge's summary judgment motion and denies the application for a writ of procedendo.
{¶2} Attached to the judge's motion are certified copies of three March 30, 2015 judgment entries in the underlying cases. The first in CR-12-562461-A denies the subject motion. The second in CR-12-561502-A grants the subject motion and promises to enter a nunc pro tunc order correcting the sentencing entry to state that the sentence in CR-12-561502-A was to run concurrently to any other sentence. The third entry is the nunc pro tunc entry providing that the sentence in CR-12-561502-A is to run concurrent to any other sentence. These journal entries establish that the respondent judge has proceeded to judgment on the subject motions and that this procedendo action is moot.
The writ of procedendo is merely an order from a court of superior jurisdiction to one of inferior jurisdiction to proceed to judgment. Yee
{¶3} Relator also did not comply with R.C. 2969.25(C), which requires that an inmate file a certified statement from his prison cashier setting forth the balance in his private account for each of the preceding six months. This also is sufficient reason to deny the writ action, deny indigency status and assess costs against the relator. State ex rel. Pamer v. Collier, 108 Ohio St.3d 492, 2006-Ohio-1507, 844 N.E.2d 842; State ex rel. Hunter v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 88 Ohio St.3d 176, 2000-Ohio-285, 724 N.E.2d 420; and Hazel v. Knab, 130 Ohio St.3d 22, 2011-Ohio-4608, 955 N.E.2d 378.
{¶4} Accordingly, this court grants the respondent's motion for summary judgment and denies the application for a writ of procedendo. Relator to pay costs. This court directs the clerk of courts to serve all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal as required by Civ.R. 58(B).
{¶5} Writ denied.
/s/_________
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, PRESIDING JUDGE
MARY JANE BOYLE, J., and
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J., CONCUR
v. Erie Cty. Sheriff's Dept., 51 Ohio St.3d 43, 553 N.E.2d 1354 (1990). Procedendo is appropriate when a court has either refused to render a judgment or has unnecessarily delayed proceeding to judgment. State ex rel. Watkins v. Eighth Dist. Court of Appeals, 82 Ohio St.3d 532, 1998-Ohio-190, 696 N.E.2d 1079.