Court Opinion

ID: 9390259
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-27 14:07:58.293436+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:33.157593
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State ex. rel. Belle v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 2023-Ohio-1378.]

                               COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                             EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO EX REL.,
STACEY BELLE,                                          :

                 Relator,                              :
                                                                            No. 112345
                 v.                                    :

CUYAHOGA COUNTY COURT OF                               :
COMMON PLEAS, ET AL.,

                 Respondent.                           :

                               JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                 JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED
                 RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: April 25, 2023

                                          Writ of Procedendo
                                          Motion No. 562111
                                          Order No. 563821

                                            Appearances:

                 Stacey Belle, pro se.

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

ANITA LASTER MAYS, A.J.:

                   On January 23, 2023, the relator, Stacey Belle, commenced this

procedendo action against the respondents, the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas
Court and Judge Shannon Gallagher, to compel them to rule on his postconviction-

relief petition that he filed on May 17, 2019, in the underlying cases, State v. Belle,

Cuyahoga C.P. Nos. CR-17-617407-A and CR-17-614505-A. On February 16, 2023,

the respondents moved for summary judgment on the grounds of mootness.

Attached to the dispositive motion was a copy of certified journal entry, filestamped

February 14, 2023, in the underlying case, denying Belle’s postconviction-relief

petition. This journal entry establishes that Belle has received his requested relief,

a ruling on his petition, and that this procedendo action is moot. Belle never filed a

response to the motion for summary judgment.

               Accordingly, the court grants the respondent’s motion for summary

judgment and denies the writ. Costs assessed against respondent. The clerk is

directed to serve upon the parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon

the journal. Civ.R. 58(B).

               Writ denied.

_____________________________________
ANITA LASTER MAYS, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, J., and
MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR