Court Opinion

ID: 3692150
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-06 06:34:10.800831+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:51.735289
License: Public Domain

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
* * * * *
This matter is before the court on relator's "ORIGINAL ACTION IN MANDAMUS Pursuant to Ohio Constitution Art.IV § 3(B)(1)(b)."
Relator apparently seeks to compel this court to immediately rule on his "MOTION FOR RE-OPENING AND REINSTATEMENT OF APPEAL ON THE GROUNDS OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL" which was filed on October 28, 1997. Relator asserts that he is entitled to a decision in his favor pursuant to App.R. 18(C) because the Fulton County Prosecuting Attorney has failed to respond to his application for reopening and because this court has exceeded what he believes to be a thirty-day time limit pursuant to R.C. 2701.02 for ruling on such an application. This court finds both of relator's arguments to be without merit.
Further, this court notes that relator failed to attach a praecipe to his complaint in mandamus and that the clerk of courts therefore was not able to make proper service. 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 6. Accordingly, relator's petition is dismissed.
Court costs are assessed to relator.
  _______________________________  Peter M. Handwork, P.J.
JUDGE
  _______________________________  George M. Glasser, J.
JUDGE
  _______________________________  Richard W. Knepper, J.
JUDGE
CONCUR.