[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