State ex rel. Gilbert v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as State ex rel. Gilbert v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 2010-Ohio-5255.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 95500 STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. LAURICE GILBERT RELATOR vs. CUYAHOGA COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS RESPONDENT JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED Writ of Mandamus Motion No. 437095 Order No. 438437 RELEASE DATE: October 27, 2010 FOR RELATOR Laurice Gilbert, pro se Inmate No. 534-161 Mansfield Correctional Institution P.O. Box 788 Mansfield, Ohio 44901 ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT William D. Mason Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: James E. Moss Assistant County Prosecutor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J.: {¶ 1} Relator requests that this court compel respondent judge to comply with the mandate of this court s February 5, 2009 decision in State v. Gilbert, Cuyahoga App. No. 90615, 2009-Ohio-463, remanding State v. Gilbert, Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-487765, to the court of common pleas. Gilbert contends that the court of common pleas has failed to resentence him as required by Case No. 90615. The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed this court s judgment in Case No. 90615 and remanded the case to this court in State v. Gilbert, 124 Ohio St.3d 119, 2009-Ohio-6543, 919 N.E.2d 737. {¶ 2} Respondent has filed a motion for summary judgment, attached to which is a copy of a journal entry issued by respondent and received for filing by the clerk on August 31, 2010, in which respondent issued a newly revised sentencing entry. Relator has not opposed the motion. Respondent argues that this action in mandamus is, therefore, moot. We agree. {¶ 3} Accordingly, respondent s motion for summary judgment is granted. Respondent 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. FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., JUDGE MARY EILEEN KILBANE, P.J., and ANN DYKE, 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.