State ex rel. Abrams v. Gaul

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as State ex rel. Abrams v. Gaul, 2010-Ohio-917.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 94587 STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. DANTE ABRAMS RELATOR vs. JUDGE DANIEL GAUL RESPONDENT JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED Writ of Mandamus and Procedendo Motion No. 431405 Order No. 431491 RELEASE DATE: March 10, 2010 2 FOR RELATOR Dante Abrams, pro se Inmate No. 552-364 Richland Correctional Inst. P.O. Box 8107 Mansfield, Ohio 44901 ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT William D. Mason Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 8th Floor Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 MARY J. BOYLE, J.: On January 27, 2010, relator, Dante Abrams, filed a complaint for writ of mandamus and procedendo against Judge Daniel Gaul to compel him to rule on his motion for correction of sentence, which was filed in State v. Abrams, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case Nos. CR-505155 and CR-510954 so he may be able to appeal. On February 22, 2010, Judge Gaul, through the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor s office, filed a motion for summary judgment. For the following reason, we grant the motion for summary judgment. Attached to the motion for summary judgment is a copy of the journal entries which indicate that on December 17, 2009, Judge Gaul issued 3 corrected sentencing entries in both cases. 1 Accordingly, we find that Abrams complaint for a writ of mandamus and procedendo is moot. State ex rel. Grant v. Coleman (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 5, 450 N.E.2d 1163; State ex rel. Jerninghan v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 278, 658 N.E.2d 723. Accordingly, we grant Judge Gaul s motion for summary judgment. Relator to bear costs. It is further ordered that the clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and date of entry pursuant to Civ.R. 58(B). Writ denied. MARY J. BOYLE, JUDGE KENNETH A. ROCCO, P.J., and MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., CONCUR 1 A review of this court s docket indicates that Adams filed his appeal of these matters in Case No. 94637.

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.