State ex rel. Santiago v. Saffold

[Cite as State ex rel. Santiago v. Saffold, 2014-Ohio-2539.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 101240
STATE EX REL. CARLOS SANTIAGO
RELATOR
vs.
CUYAHOGA COUNTY COURT
JUDGE SHIRLEY S. SAFFOLD
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT:
WRIT DENIED
Writ of Procedendo
Motion No. 474507
Order No. 475344
RELEASE DATE: June 11, 2014
FOR RELATOR
Carlos Santiago, pro se
No. A389-108
Grafton Reintegration Center
2500 S. Avon Belden Road
Grafton, Ohio 44044
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
James E. Moss
Assistant County Prosecutor
8th Floor Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
MARY J. BOYLE, A.J.:
{¶1} On April 11, 2014, the relator, Carlos Santiago, commenced this
procedendo action1 against the respondent, Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold, to compel
the judge to rule on a motion for jail-time credit that Santiago filed on February 5, 2014,
in the underlying case, State v. Santiago, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-99-385140.2 On May
1, 2014, the respondent judge moved for summary judgment on the grounds of mootness
and procedural defects. Santiago never filed a timely 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 dispositive motion is a copy of a certified April 25,
2014 journal entry granting Santiago 43 days of jail-time credit in the underlying case.
This journal entry establishes that the judge has proceeded to judgment on the subject
motion and that this writ action is moot.
1 The writ of procedendo is an order from a court of superior jurisdiction to one of inferior
jurisdiction to proceed to judgment. Yee 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, 696 N.E.2d 1079 (1998). However, procedendo will not lie to control
the exercise of judicial discretion. Moreover, it will not issue when there is an adequate remedy at
law. State ex rel. Hansen v. Reed, 63 Ohio St.3d 597, 589 N.E.2d 1324 (1992).
2 On June 22, 2000, in the underlying case, the respondent judge sentenced Santiago to 17
months for grand theft motor vehicle concurrent to a 14-year sentence for attempted murder, five-year
firearm specification, and improper discharge of a firearm in State v. Santiago, Cuyahoga C.P. No.
CR-99-383719.
{¶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 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; and
Hazel v. Knab, 130 Ohio St.3d 22, 2011-Ohio-4608, 955 N.E.2d 378.
{¶4} Additionally, the relator failed to support his complaint with an affidavit
“specifying the details of the claim” as required by Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a). State ex rel.
Leon v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 123 Ohio St.3d 124, 2009-Ohio-4688,
914 N.E.2d 402; State ex rel. Wilson v. Calabrese, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 70077, 1996
Ohio App. LEXIS 6213 (Jan. 18, 1996).
{¶5} Accordingly, this court grants the respondent’s motion for summary
judgment and denies the writ. Relator to pay costs. This court directs the clerk of court
to serve upon the parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal.
Civ.R. 58(B).
{¶6} Writ denied.
______________________________________________
MARY J. BOYLE, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., and
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR
KEY WORDS
101240
Procedendo; jail-time credit; mootness; R.C. 2969.25(C); prison cashier’s statement; and
Loc.App.R. 45 supporting affidavit. Procedendo action to compel ruling on a motion for
jail-time credit rendered moot by the judge granting 43 days of jail-time credit. Relator
also did not comply with R.C. 2969.25(C) because he failed to attach a prison cashier’s
statement, and relator did not file a supporting affidavit as required by Loc.App.R. 45.