# State ex rel. Brown v. Corrigan

> Ohio Court of Appeals · May 12, 2014 · 2014 Ohio 2067

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2701700

## Case

- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** May 12, 2014
- **Citations:** 2014 Ohio 2067
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Boyle
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2701700

## Opinion text

[Cite as State ex rel. Brown v. Corrigan, 2014-Ohio-2067.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 101065

STATE OF OHIO, EX REL.
DEMETRIUS BROWN

RELATOR

vs.

JUDGE PETER CORRIGAN
RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT:
WRIT DENIED

Writ of Procedendo
Motion No. 473367
Order No. 474148

RELEASE DATE: May 12, 2014
FOR RELATOR

Demetrius Brown, pro se
No. 502-975
P.O. Box 7010
Chillicothe, Ohio 45601

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT

Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: James E. Moss
Assistant County Prosecutor
9th Floor Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
MARY J. BOYLE, A.J.:

{¶1} Relator, Demetrius Brown, petitions this court to compel respondent judge

to dispose of his motion for jail-time credit filed in State v. Brown, Cuyahoga C.P. No.

CR-05-464069-A, on February 3, 2014.

{¶2} Respondent has filed a motion for summary judgment citing numerous

procedural deficiencies in Brown’s petition and also attaching a copy of a journal entry

issued by respondent that granted Brown’s motion for jail-time credit on February 11,

2014. Specifically, respondent asserts that Brown failed to comply with the

requirements of R.C. 2969.25(C), Civ.R. 10, Loc.App.R. 45, and R.C. 2969.25. Relator

has not opposed respondent’s motion. Respondent’s motion for summary judgment is

granted based on the procedural deficiencies in Brown’s petition. Further, Brown is not

entitled to a writ of procedendo because the action 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).

{¶3} Accordingly, respondent’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

Relator to pay costs. 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.

_____________________________________________
MARY J. BOYLE, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J., and
TIM McCORMACK, J., CONCUR

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2701700. Public record. Not legal advice.