Court Opinion

ID: 9931376
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-08 20:09:07.085265+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:17:30.406864
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State ex rel. Jarrells v. Sutula, 2024-Ohio-451.]

                                COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                               EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                  COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO, EX REL.,
ROBERT F. JARRELLS,                                          :

                  Relator,                                   :   No. 113522

                  v.                                         :

HON. KATHLEEN SUTULA,                                        :

                  Respondent.                                :

                                 JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                  JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED
                  RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: February 7, 2024

                                            Writ of Procedendo
                                            Motion No. 571133
                                            Order No. 571897

                                               Appearances:

                  Robert F. Jarrells, pro se.

                  Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
                  Attorney, and James E. Moss, Assistant Prosecuting
                  Attorney, for respondent.

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J.:

                    Relator, Robert F. Jarrells, seeks a writ of procedendo1 directing

         1 The caption of the complaint states that this is an original action for a writ of

procedendo. However, in the body of the complaint, relator references both mandamus
respondent, Judge Kathleen Sutula, to rule on motions he filed in two underlying

criminal cases over which respondent presides. Respondent has journalized entries

denying relator’s motions, rendering the claim for relief in this action moot.

Accordingly, respondent’s motion for summary judgment is granted and relator’s

request for writ of procedendo is denied.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

                On December 28, 2023, relator filed the instant complaint for a writ

of procedendo. There, he alleged that he was the defendant in two criminal cases,

State v. Jarrells, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-20-652726 and State v. Jarrells, Cuyahoga

C.P. No. CR-21-656643. He further alleged that respondent presided over both

cases. Relator asserted that he filed pro se motions styled “motion for void of

judgment” in these underlying cases, arguing that the sentences he received

exceeded the statutory sentencing guidelines and were therefore void. At the time

the complaint was filed, no ruling on these motions had been journalized by

respondent.      Relator’s complaint requested a writ of procedendo ordering

respondent to rule on the pending motions.

                To ensure the timely resolution of this matter, on December 29, 2023,

this court issued a briefing order directing respondent to file a dispositive motion,

and procedendo. Because procedendo is the more applicable writ to specifically move a
court to proceed to judgment, we will analyze relator’s claim under the standard for
procedendo. See State ex rel. Dehler v. Sutula, 74 Ohio St.3d 33, 35, 656 N.E.2d 332 (1995),
quoting State ex rel. Levin v. Sheffield Lake, 70 Ohio St.3d 104, 110, 637 N.E.2d 319 (1994).
and answer where appropriate, on or before January 16, 2024. This court gave

relator until January 30, 2024, to file a brief in opposition to respondent’s filing.

               On January 11, 2024, respondent filed a motion for summary

judgment. There, respondent alleged that in each underlying case, entries denying

relator’s “motions for void of judgment” were journalized on January 10, 2024.

Respondent argued that the request for writ of procedendo was now moot.

Respondent also argued that relator failed to include an affidavit of prior civil

actions required by R.C. 2969.25(A). Relator did not file any timely opposition to

respondent’s motion for summary judgment.

II. Law and Analysis

      A. Standards Applicable to this Action

               A writ of procedendo is an order to proceed to judgment from a

superior court to an inferior court that has either refused to render judgment or has

unnecessarily delayed proceeding to judgment. State ex rel. Doe v. Gallia Cty.

Common Pleas Court, 153 Ohio St.3d 623, 2018-Ohio-2168, 109 N.E.3d 1222, ¶ 14,

quoting State ex rel. R.W. Sidley, Inc. v. Crawford, 100 Ohio St.3d 113, 2003-Ohio-

5101, 796 N.E.2d 929, ¶ 16, quoting State ex rel. Weiss v. Hoover, 84 Ohio St.3d 530,

532, 705 N.E.2d 1227 (1999). To succeed a relator must demonstrate by clear and

convincing evidence “‘“a clear legal right to require the trial court to proceed, a clear

legal duty on the part of the trial court to proceed, and the lack of an adequate

remedy in the ordinary course of the law.”’” State ex rel. Bechtel v. Cornachio, 164

Ohio St.3d 579, 2021-Ohio-1121, 174 N.E.3d 744, ¶ 7, quoting State ex rel. White v.
Woods, 156 Ohio St.3d 562, 2019-Ohio-1893, 130 N.E.3d 271, ¶ 7, quoting State ex

rel. Ward v. Reed, 141 Ohio St.3d 50, 2014-Ohio-4512, 21 N.E.3d 303, ¶ 9.

                However, procedendo may not be used to control judicial discretion.

A court may only order a respondent to proceed to judgment; it may not dictate what

that decision will be. State ex rel. Fontanella v. Kontos, 117 Ohio St.3d 514, 2008-

Ohio-1431, 885 N.E.2d 220, ¶ 7, quoting State ex rel. Tenace v. Court of Claims, 94

Ohio St.3d 319, 322, 762 N.E.2d (2002). Procedendo may also not be used to compel

a judge to perform an act that has already happened. Id. at ¶ 6, quoting State ex rel.

Howard v. Doneghy, 102 Ohio St.3d 355, 2004-Ohio-3207, 810 N.E.2d 958, ¶ 6,

quoting State ex rel. Kreps v. Christiansen, 88 Ohio St.3d 313, 318, 725 N.E.2d 663

(2000). When a respondent proceeds to judgment during the pendency of an

original action for writ of procedendo, the action becomes moot because the relator

has received all the relief to which they are entitled. Bechtel at ¶ 9, citing State ex

rel. Hibbler v. O’Neill, 159 Ohio St.3d 566, 2020-Ohio-1070, 152 N.E.3d 265, ¶ 8.

                The matter is before this court on summary judgment. Pursuant to

Civ.R. 56(C):

      Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings,
      depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits,
      transcripts of evidence, and written stipulations of fact, if any, timely
      filed in the action, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material
      fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
      law. No evidence or stipulation may be considered except as stated in
      this rule. A summary judgment shall not be rendered unless it appears
      from the evidence or stipulation, and only from the evidence or
      stipulation, that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and
      that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for
      summary judgment is made, that party being entitled to have the
      evidence or stipulation construed most strongly in the party’s favor.

      B. The Request for Procedendo is Moot

               Relator requests this court to direct respondent to rule on motions in

two underlying cases. Respondent has entered judgments denying relator’s motions

that sought to vacate his sentences in these two underlying cases. Respondent

attached certified copies of these entries to the motion for summary judgment.

These entries were further authenticated by an affidavit and constitute allowed

evidence under Civ.R. 56(C). According to these certified entries, relator has

received all the relief to which he is entitled in this action. Relator’s request for a

writ of procedendo is, therefore, moot.

               Respondent has conclusively demonstrated that the present action is

moot. There is no genuine issue of material fact remaining and respondent is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

               Respondent’s motion for summary judgment is granted. Relator’s

claim for a writ of procedendo is denied as moot. Costs to respondent; costs waived.

The clerk is directed to serve on the parties notice of this judgment and its date of

entry upon the journal. Civ.R. 58(B).
           Writ denied.

___________________________
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, JUDGE

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, A.J., and
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR