State ex rel. Burrington v. Saffold

Full text

[Cite as State ex rel. Burrington v. Saffold, 2014-Ohio-939.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 100845

STATE EX REL. PATRICK BURRINGTON

RELATOR vs.

HONORABLE SHIRLEY SAFFOLD

RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED

Writ of Mandamus Motion No. 471928 Order No. 472567

RELEASE DATE: March 7, 2014

FOR RELATOR

Patrick Burrington, pro se Inmate No. 641-115 Trumbull Correctional Institution P.O. Box 901 5701 Burnett Road Leavittsburg, Ohio 44430

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT

Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor

BY: James E. Moss Assistant County Prosecutor The Justice Center, 8th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113

LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J.:

{¶1} Patrick Burrington has filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus. 1 Burrington seeks a writ of mandamus in order to compel Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold to render a ruling with regard to a pending motion for jail-time credit filed in State v. Burrington, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-552822. We decline to issue a writ of mandamus.

{¶2} Attached to Judge Saffold’s motion for summary judgment is a copy of a judgment entry, journalized on January 21, 2014, that demonstrates that Burrington has been granted 37 days in jail-time credit. Burrington’s request for a writ of mandamus is moot. State ex rel. 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, 6 Ohio St.3d 5, 450 N.E.2d 1163 (1983). In addition, any error associated with the calculation of jail-time credit must be addressed through an appeal. State ex rel. Britton v. Foley-Jones, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 73646, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS (Mar. 5, 1998); State ex rel. Spates v. Sweeney, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 71986, 1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 1516 (Apr. 17, 1997).

{¶3} Accordingly, we grant Judge Saffold’s motion for summary judgment. Costs to Judge Saffold. Costs waived. The court directs the clerk of court to serve all parties

1 A review of the complaint discloses that Burrington also seeks a writ of procedendo, as premised upon a pending petition for postconviction relief, and a writ of habeas corpus, premised upon unlawful imprisonment. A review of the docket in the underlying criminal action demonstrates that Burrington has not filed a petition for postconviction relief. In addition, one of the basic requirements for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus is that, regardless of where the petitioner was convicted, the petition can only be brought and proceed in the county where he is actually incarcerated. Bridges v. McMackin, 44 Ohio St.3d 135, 541 N.E.2d 1035 (1989). This court does not possess the authority to order the release of a person from prison unless the prison lies within our territorial jurisdiction, which is Cuyahoga County. State ex rel. Durham v. Wilson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 85928, 2005-Ohio-757. Since Burrington is not incarcerated within Cuyahoga County, we lack the jurisdiction to address the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

with notice of this judgment and the date of entry upon the journal as required by Civ.R. 58(B).

{¶4} Writ denied.

LARRY A. JONES, SR., PRESIDING JUDGE

PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J., and TIM McCORMACK, J., CONCUR