State ex rel. Poole v. Corrigan ( 2011 )

[Cite as State ex rel. Poole v. Corrigan, 2011-Ohio-3270.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 96745
STATE OF OHIO, EX REL.
LARRY POOLE,
RELATOR
vs.
JUDGE BRIAN CORRIGAN
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT:
WRIT DENIED
Writ of Mandamus
Motion No. 444889
Order No. 445668
RELEASED DATE: June 28, 2011
FOR RELATOR
Larry Poole, pro se
Inmate #432-273
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
501 Thompson Road
Conneaut, Ohio 44030
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
William D. Mason
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: James E. Moss
Assistant County Prosecutor
8th Floor Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J.:
{¶ 1} Larry Poole, the relator, has filed a complaint for a writ of
mandamus. Poole seeks an order from this court that requires Judge Brian
Corrigan, the respondent, to render a ruling with regard to a motion to
withdraw plea of guilty as filed on December 1, 2010, in the underlying
criminal action of State v. Poole, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-418372. Judge Corrigan has filed a motion for summary
judgment, which we grant for the following reasons.
{¶ 2} Initially, we find that Poole’s complaint for a writ of mandamus is
procedurally defective. Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a) mandates that a complaint for
an extraordinary writ must be supported by a sworn affidavit that specifies
the details of Poole’s claim. The failure of Poole to comply with the
supporting affidavit requirement of Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a) requires the
dismissal of the complaint for a writ of mandamus. State ex rel. Smith v.
McMonagle (July 17, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 70899; State ex rel. Wilson v.
Calabrese (Jan. 18, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 70077.
{¶ 3} Poole has also failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C), which
requires 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 Poole
to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C) warrants dismissal of his complaint for a writ
of mandamus. Boles v. Knab, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-2859; Martin v.
Woods, 121 Ohio St.3d 609, 2009-Ohio-1928, 906 N.E.2d 1113.
{¶ 4} Finally, Poole’s request for a writ of mandamus is moot.
Attached to Judge Corrigan’s motion for summary judgment is a copy of a
judgment entry, as journalized on May 25, 2011, that demonstrates a ruling
has been issued with regard to Poole’s motion to withdraw plea of guilty.
Thus, Poole has failed to establish that he is entitled to a writ of mandamus.
State v. 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.
{¶ 5} Accordingly, we grant Judge Corrigan’s motion for summary
judgment. Costs to Poole. 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.
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, JUDGE
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, P.J., and
MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR