State ex rel. Sowell v. Mannen
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State ex rel. Sowell v. Mannen, 2006-Ohio-4774.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 87948 STATE OF OHIO EX REL., EUGENE SOWELL RELATOR vs. ANN T. MANNEN, JUDGE RESPONDENT JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED WRIT OF MANDAMUS MOTION NO. 382787 ORDER NO. 388043 RELEASE DATE: __September 12, 2006__ [Cite as State ex rel. Sowell v. Mannen, 2006-Ohio-4774.] ATTORNEY FOR RELATOR: EUGENE SOWELL, pro se Inmate No. 440-166 Mansfield Correctional Institution P.O. Box 788 Mansfield, Ohio 44901-0788 ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT: WILLIAM D. MASON Cuyahoga County Prosecutor BY: MARY MCGRATH Assistant County Prosecutor 8th Floor Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 [Cite as State ex rel. Sowell v. Mannen, 2006-Ohio-4774.] JUDGE MICHAEL J. CORRIGAN: {¶ 1} On March 29, 2006, petitioner Eugene Sowell filed this mandamus action against Judge Ann Mannen. In his petition, Sowell asks this court to order Judge Mannen to specify the number of jail-time credit days he is entitled to receive in State v. Sowell, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Case Nos. CR416393; CR-412419; and CR-423244. Thereafter, on April 4, 2006, Judge Mannen, through the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor s Office, filed a motion for summary judgement in response to petition for original action in mandamus. On April 26, 2006, Sowell filed his opposition to respondent s motion for summary judgment. For the following reason, we grant the motion for summary judgment. {¶ 2} Attached to the motion for summary judgment are copies of the journal entries, journalized on June 25, 2002 and November 8, 2002, that demonstrate that Judge Mannen previously calculated and awarded the number of jail-time credit days Sowell was to receive.1 Accordingly, Sowell s request for a writ of mandamus 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. It must also be noted that any error associated with the calculation of jail-time credit, which seems to be Sowell s main point of contention, 1 The journal entry for Case No. CR-412419 was journalized on June 25, 2002, and Sowell received forty-two (42) days of jail-time credit. The journal entry for Case No. 423244 was journalized on November 8, 2002, and Sowell received one hundred seventynine (179) days of jail-time credit. Since Case No. CR-416393 was dismissed without prejudice on May 6, 2002, Sowell did not receive jail-time credit. 4 must be addressed through a direct appeal. State ex rel. Jerningham v. McCormick, Cuyahoga App. No. 87151, 2005-Ohio-6968; State ex rel. Spates v. Sweeney (Apr. 17, 1997), Cuyahoga App. No. 71986. {¶ 3} Accordingly, we grant the motion for summary judgment. Relator to bear costs. It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Eighth District Court of Appeals serve notice of this judgment upon all parties as required by Civ.R. 58(B). Writ Denied. _________________________________________ MICHAEL J. CORRIGAN, JUDGE ANTHONY O. CALABRESE, P.J., and MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., CONCUR
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.
