State ex rel. Compton v. Sutula ( 2011 )

[Cite as State ex rel. Compton v. Sutula, 2011-Ohio-6302.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 97246
STATE OF OHIO, EX REL.
JOHN COMPTON
RELATOR
vs.
JUDGE JOHN D. SUTULA
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT:
WRIT DENIED
Writ of Mandamus
Motion No. 448147
Order No. 450026
RELEASE DATE: December 7, 2011
FOR RELATOR
John Compton, pro se
Inmate No. A-523-531
Grafton Correctional Institution
1800 S. Avon-Belden Road
Grafton, Ohio 44044
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT
William D. Mason
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: James E. Moss
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
The Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., P.J.:
{¶ 1} On September 2, 2011, the relator, John Compton, commenced
this mandamus action against the respondent, Judge John Sutula, to compel
the judge to rule on motions for jail time credit that Compton had filed on
February 24, 2011, and March 25, 2011, in the underlying case, State of Ohio
v. John Compton, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Case No.
CR-451212. On June 8, 2011, Compton filed an addendum to these motions.
He asserts in his complaint that he is seeking a total of 524 days of jail time
credit. On September 29, 2011, the respondent judge moved for summary
judgment on the grounds of mootness. Compton filed his brief in opposition
on October 25, 2011, and the respondent filed a notice of judicial action on
November 4, 2011. For the following reasons, this court grants the
respondent’s motion for summary judgment and denies the application for a
writ of mandamus.
{¶ 2} 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 (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 118, 515 N.E.2d 914. Mandamus is
not a substitute for appeal. State ex rel. Keenan v. Calabrese (1994), 69 Ohio
St.3d 176, 631 N.E.2d 119; State ex rel. Daggett v. Gessaman (1973), 34 Ohio
St.2d 55, 295 N.E.2d 659; and State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm. of Ohio
(1967), 11 Ohio St.2d 141, 228 N.E.2d 631, paragraph three of the syllabus.
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, and State ex rel. Boardwalk
Shopping Ctr., Inc. v. Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga Cty. (1990), 56 Ohio
St.3d 33, 564 N.E.2d 86.
{¶ 3} The respondent judge resolved the subject motions through a
series of orders. First, on June 23, 2011, he granted the motion in part by
granting 36 days of jail time credit for time spent in the Oklahoma county
jail. The judge specifically held in abeyance Compton’s request of 204 days of
credit spent in St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana, while the judge made several
attempts to verify Compton’s claim. On September 29, 2011, the judge
granted the motion for jail time credit in part and denied it part. He granted
Compton all the time he sought, as stated in the mandamus complaint, for
time spent in the Cuyahoga county jail, the time spent in the Oklahoma
county jail, and time spent in transport from Oklahoma to Cuyahoga county.
However, he again held in abeyance the request for time in Louisiana because
he could not verify whether Compton was held there. On November 4, 2011,
the judge denied the motion for jail time credit for the time allegedly spent in
Louisiana. The judge stated that he had contacted the St. Bernard’s sheriff’s
office for the third time, and that office could not verify that Compton had
been incarcerated there because the records may have been destroyed by
Hurricane Katrina. Thus, because the judge could not verify the time, he
denied that part of the motion.
{¶ 4} With the November 4, 2011 ruling, the judge fulfilled his duty to
rule upon the subject motions, and this matter became moot. The judge
exercised his discretion, and this court may not use mandamus to control that
discretion by ordering the judge to credit any given amount of time. To the
extent that Compton disagrees with the judge’s rulings, he has or had an
adequate remedy at law.
{¶ 5} Accordingly, respondent’s motion for summary judgment is
granted and relator’s application for a writ of mandamus is denied. Costs
assessed against relator. The clerk is directed to serve upon the parties
notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. Civ.R. 58(B).
Writ denied.
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE
KENNETH A. ROCCO, J., and
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR