State v. Brooks ( 2011 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as State v. Brooks, 2011-Ohio-6483.]
    Court of Appeals of Ohio
    EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
    JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
    No. 97198
    STATE OF OHIO
    RESPONDENT
    vs.
    ULIOUS BROOKS
    RELATOR
    JUDGMENT:
    WRIT DENIED
    Writ of Mandamus
    Motion No. 447909
    Order No. 450167
    RELEASE DATE:                December 13, 2011
    FOR RELATOR
    2
    Ulious Brooks, pro se
    Inmate # 453-172
    Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
    P. O. Box 45699
    Lucasville, Ohio 45699
    ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENTS
    William D. Mason
    Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
    By: James E. Moss
    Assistant County Prosecutor
    8th Floor Justice Center
    1200 Ontario Street
    Cleveland, Ohio 44113
    EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J.:
    {¶ 1} On August 24, 2011, the relator, Ulious Brooks, commenced this
    mandamus action to compel a ruling on a motion to correct improper sentence which he
    filed on January 21, 2011, in the underlying case, State of Ohio v. Ulious Brooks,
    Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Case No. CR-435228.           On September 20,
    2011, the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor on behalf of the respondent moved for summary
    judgment. Brooks never filed a brief in opposition to this motion. For the following
    3
    reasons, this court grants the motion for summary judgment and denies the application for
    a writ of mandamus.
    {¶ 2} First, the petition is defective because it is improperly captioned.   Brooks
    styled this petition as “State of Ohio v. Ulious Brooks.” R.C. 2731.04 requires that an
    application for a writ of mandamus “must be by petition, in the name of the state on the
    relation of the person applying.”   This failure to properly caption a mandamus action is
    sufficient grounds for denying the writ and dismissing the petition. Maloney v. Court of
    Common Pleas of Allen Cty. (1962), 
    173 Ohio St. 226
    , 
    181 N.E.2d 270
    . Moreover, the
    failure to caption the case correctly, i.e., not naming the respondent on whom the duty lies
    as compared to the defendant in the underlying case, creates uncertainty as to the identity
    of the respondent. This court has held that this deficiency alone also warrants dismissal.
    State ex rel. Larry Calloway v. Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga Cty. (Feb. 27,
    1997), Cuyahoga App. No. 71699; State ex rel. Samuels v. Mun. Court (Nov. 22, 1994),
    Cuyahoga App. No. 67762; and State ex rel. White v. Villanueva (Oct. 6, 1993),
    Cuyahoga App. No. 66009.
    {¶ 3} Moreover, attached to the motion for summary judgment is a certified copy
    of a September 19, 2011 journal entry in which Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold ruled in
    the underlying case: “Defendant’s motions to correct improper sentence filed January 21,
    2011 and January 31, 2011 are denied.” This journal entry established that Brooks has
    4
    obtained his requested relief, a ruling on the subject motion.     Therefore, this matter is
    moot.
    {¶ 4} The relator has also failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25, 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.     The relator’s failure to comply with R.C.
    2969.25 warrants dismissal of the complaint for a writ of mandamus.            State ex rel.
    Zanders v. Ohio Parole Bd., 
    82 Ohio St. 3d 421
    , 1998-Ohio-218, 
    696 N.E.2d 594
    and
    State ex rel. Alford v. Winters, 
    80 Ohio St. 3d 285
    , 1997-Ohio-117, 
    685 N.E.2d 1242
    . A
    review of this court’s records indicates that he has filed at least two other actions in the
    past five years. 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 mandamus, 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, 2011-Ohio-4608.
    {¶ 5} Additionally, the relator failed to support his complaint with an affidavit
    “specifying the details of the claim” as required by Local Rule 45(B)(1)(a). State ex rel.
    Leon v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 
    123 Ohio St. 3d 124
    , 2009-Ohio-4688,
    5
    
    914 N.E.2d 402
    ;    State ex rel. Wilson v. Calabrese (Jan. 18, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No.
    70077; and State ex rel. Smith v. McMonagle (July 17, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 70899.
    {¶ 6} Accordingly, the court grants the respondent’s motion for summary
    judgment and denies the writ. Relator to pay costs. This court directs the Clerk of the
    Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals to serve upon the parties notice of this judgment and
    its date of entry upon the journal. Civ.R. 58(B).
    Writ denied.
    EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
    PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, P.J., and
    SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 97198

Judges: Gallagher

Filed Date: 12/13/2011

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/19/2016