State ex rel. Aniton v. Suster

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as State ex rel. Aniton v. Suster, 2001-Ohio-4166.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 79862 STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. ERIC ANITON Relator -vsHONORABLE RONALD SUSTER Respondent : : : : : : : : : : JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION Date of Journalization: AUGUST 28, 2001 Character of Proceeding: PROCEDENDO Judgment: Dismissed Appearances: For Relator: ERIC L. ANITON, PRO SE Inmate No. 204-409 North Central Corr. Institute P.O. Box 1812 Marion, Ohio 43301-1812 For Respondent: WILLIAM D. MASON Cuyahoga County Prosecutor DIANE SMILANICK, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 -2- JAMES J. SWEENEY, J.: On June 25, 2001, the relator, Eric L. Aniton, commenced this procedendo action against the respondent, Judge Ronald Suster, to compel the judge to issue a ruling with regard to a petition for post-conviction relief that was filed in State v. Aniton, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-226872. On August 1, 2001, the respondent, through the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor, filed an answer and a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, a motion for summary judgment. Attached to the respondent s motion for summary judgment is a copy of the findings of fact and conclusions of law pertaining to the petition for the post-conviction relief which was journalized on August 1, 2001. Thus, the relator s request for a writ of procedendo is moot. State ex rel. Gantt v. Coleman (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 5, 450 N.E.2d 1163; State ex rel. Jerningham v. Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 278, 658 N.E.2d 723. Accordingly, we grant the respondent s motion for summary judgment. Respondent to bear costs. It is further ordered that [Cite as State ex rel. Aniton v. Suster, 2001-Ohio-4166.] the clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and date of entry pursuant to Civ.R. 58(B). Writ denied. MICHAEL J. CORRIGAN, P.J., and FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J., CONCUR. _______________________ JAMES J. SWEENEY JUDGE

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.