State ex rel. Torres v. Corrigan , 2012 Ohio 1203 ( 2012 )

[Cite as State ex rel. Torres v. Corrigan, 2012-Ohio-1203.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 97554
STATE OF OHIO, EX REL.,
ERVIN TORRES
RELATOR
vs.
JUDGE PETER J. CORRIGAN
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT:
WRIT DENIED
Writ of Procedendo
Motion Nos. 449420 and 450081
Order No. 453203
RELEASE DATE: March 19, 2012
FOR RELATOR
Ervin Torres, pro se
Inmate No. 583-525
Mansfield Correctional Institution
P. O. Box 788
Mansfield, OH 44901
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT
William D. Mason
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: James E. Moss
The Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street, 9th Floor
Cleveland, OH 44113
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.:
{¶1} Relator, Ervin Torres, requests that this court issue a writ of procedendo
compelling respondent judge to issue a ruling on the motion to clarify sentence filed by
relator in State v. Torres, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-526656, on August 4, 2011.
{¶2} Respondent judge has filed a motion for summary judgment attached to
which is a copy of the journal entry received for filing by the clerk on November 29,
2011 granting in part and denying in part the motion to clarify sentence. Relator has not
opposed the motion. Respondent argues that this action in procedendo is, therefore,
moot. We agree.
{¶3} Additionally, Torres’s complaint is defective. Torres has not complied with
Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a) which provides that a complaint in an original action “must be
supported by an affidavit from the plaintiff or relator specifying the details of the claim.”
In the operative portion of Torres’s affidavit, he merely avers “that the foregoing
statements are true and correct, under penalty of perjury.” A “conclusory statement is
not sufficient to comply with Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a) and is a ground for denying relief
in this action.” (Citation omitted.) State ex rel. Koller v. Sutula, 8th Dist. No. 97173,
2012-Ohio-369, at ¶ 5.
{¶4} Torres has also failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A) “which requires an
affidavit that describes each civil action or appeal filed by the relator within the previous
five years in any state or federal court.” State v. Brooks, 8th Dist. No. 97198,
2011-Ohio-6483, at ¶ 4 (action in mandamus). Failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A)
is also a basis for denying relief. Id.{¶5} Accordingly, respondent’s motion for summary judgment is granted.
Relator to pay costs. 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.
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, A.J. and
MELODY J. STEWART, CONCUR