State ex rel. Cotton v. Russo
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State ex rel. Cotton v. Russo, 2010-Ohio-4365.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 95163 STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. MILTON COTTON RELATOR vs. JUDGE JOHN RUSSO RESPONDENT JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED Writ of Mandamus/Procedendo Motion No. 434841 Order No. 436996 RELEASE DATE: September 13, 2010 2 FOR RELATOR Milton Cotton, pro se Inmate No. A234-317 Grafton Correctional Institution 2500 S. Avon-Belden Road Grafton, Ohio 44044 ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT William D. Mason Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: James E. Moss Assistant County Prosecutor 8th Floor Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 MELODY J. STEWART, J.: {¶ 1} On May 26, 2010, the relator, Milton Cotton, commenced this mandamus or procedendo action against the respondent, Judge John Russo, to compel the judge to decide and issue findings of fact and conclusions of law for a Motion to vacate void ab initio order which Cotton filed on August 11, 2009, in the underlying case, State of Ohio v. Milton Cotton, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-281730. On June 15, 2010, the respondent judge, through the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor, filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds of mootness. Attached to this dispositive motion was a certified 3 copy of a June 11, 2010 journal entry which states as follows: Defendant s motion to vacate the void ab initio judgment entry of 8/14/1992, filed August 11, 2009, is denied. The Supreme Court of Ohio has determined that the sentencing journal entry in this case complies with Crim.R. 32(C). State ex rel. Cotton v. Russo (2010), __ Ohio St.3d __, 2010 WL 2011466. Defendant s motion for findings and conclusions filed October 7, 2009, is denied. Cotton never filed a response to the judge s dispositive motion. {¶ 2} This journal entry establishes that the respondent judge has fulfilled his duty to rule on the outstanding motions, and that Cotton has received his requested relief, a ruling with findings and conclusions. State ex rel. Carrion v. Harris (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 19, 530 N.E.2d 1330. {¶ 3} Accordingly, this court grants the respondent judge s motion for summary judgment and denies Cotton s application for writs of mandamus or procedendo. Each side to bear its own costs. This court directs the Clerk of the Eighth District Court of Appeals to serve upon the parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. Civ.R. 58(B). MELODY J. STEWART, JUDGE SEAN C. GALLAGHER, A.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.
