State ex rel. Wooten v. Mason
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State ex rel. Wooten v. Mason, 2010-Ohio-684.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 94375 STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. BILLY WOOTEN RELATOR vs. LANCE T. MASON, JUDGE, ET AL. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED Writ of Mandamus Motion No. 429627 Order No. 429459 RELEASE DATE: February 19, 2010 2 FOR RELATOR Billy Wooten, pro se Inmate No. 405-992 Marion Correctional Inst. P.O. Box 57 Marion, Ohio 43301-0057 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 MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J.: {¶ 1} Relator, Billy Wooten, requests that this court compel respondents judge 1 and sheriff to grant him triple-count, jail-time credit under R.C. 2945.71(E) in State v. Wooten, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-396535. For the reasons stated below, we deny Wooten s request for relief in mandamus. 1 Respondent, Judge Lance T. Mason, succeeded Judge Lillian Greene to whom Case No. CR-396535 had previously been assigned. 3 {¶ 2} Wooten avers that he has received 205 days jail-time credit. He asserts that he is entitled to three times that amount 615 days under R.C. 2945.71(E). He requests that this court compel either of the respondents to calculate jail time credit pursuant to O.R.C. §2945.71(E) [and] [t]o deduct said jail time credit from [relator s] prison sentence ***. Complaint, Ad Damnum Clause. {¶ 3} Respondents have filed a motion for summary judgment and Wooten has filed a brief in opposition to the motion. For the reasons stated below, we grant respondents motion for summary judgment. {¶ 4} Initially, we note that respondent sheriff does not have a duty to determine the number of jail-time credit days. State ex rel. Dunbar v. Saffold, Cuyahoga App. No. 89260, 2007-Ohio-1143, at ¶7. Clearly, Wooten s complaint in mandamus does not state a claim for relief against respondent sheriff. {¶ 5} In Freshour v. State (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 41, 528 N.E.2d 1259, the relator filed a motion in the underlying case and stated that he received credit for the forty days on his prison sentence, but demanded credit for one hundred twenty days purportedly under R.C. 2945. 71(E). Id. The court of appeals dismissed Freshour s complaint in mandamus for failure to state a claim and the Supreme Court affirmed. The court of common pleas * * * 4 had no duty to grant the relief [of ordering a number of days of jail-time credit which is three times the amount of actual days served]; the court of appeals had no duty to order it to do so; and the appellant had no clear legal right to the relief sought. Id. at 42. In light of the holding in Freshour, we must conclude that Wooten s complaint fails to state a claim against the court of common pleas. {¶ 6} Additionally, attached to respondents motion for summary judgment is a copy of a journal entry signed by respondent judge and received for filing on December 22, 2009 granting Wooten 222 days jail-time credit. Respondent judge has, therefore, discharged his duty to specify the number of days jail-time credit. Wooten has or had an adequate remedy by way of appeal to challenge the number of days jail-time credit. See, e.g., Leonard v. State, Cuyahoga App. No. 93872, 2009-Ohio-5971, at ¶4-5. We agree with respondents that, to the extent that Wooten is requesting that the court of common pleas specify the number of days jail-time credit, his claim for relief in mandamus is moot. {¶ 7} Accordingly, judgment. we grant Relator to pay costs. respondents motion for summary 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). 5 Writ denied. MARY EILEEN KILBANE, JUDGE SEAN C. GALLAGHER, A.J., and MELODY J. STEWART, 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.
