State ex rel. Taylor v. Leffler

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State ex rel. Taylor v. Leffler, 88 Ohio St.3d 178, 2000-Ohio-289.] [THE STATE EX REL.] TAYLOR, APPELLANT, v. LEFFLER, PROS. ATTY., ET AL., APPELLEES. [Cite as State ex rel. Taylor v. Leffler (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 178.] Mandamus to compel respondent to provide relator certain information and records relating to his criminal proceedings Denial of writ affirmed. (No. 99-1733 Submitted January 11, 2000 Decided March 8, 2000.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Huron County, No. H-99-014. In 1995 and 1996, appellant, Larry Taylor, was convicted of kidnapping, rape, felonious sexual penetration, felonious assault, and burglary, and sentenced to prison. In May 1999, Taylor filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for Huron County for a writ of mandamus to compel appellees, Huron County Prosecuting Attorney Russell V. Leffler, the Clerk of Courts of the Huron County Court of Common Pleas, the Clerk of the Norwalk Municipal Court, former Norwalk Law Director Daniel Kasaris, and Huron County Public Defender George Ford, to provide certain information and records related to relator s criminal proceedings. Respondents filed affidavits establishing that they had provided Taylor with all of the requested records and information to the extent that they existed. The court of appeals denied the writ. This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. __________________ Larry Taylor, pro se. __________________ Per Curiam. We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the reasons stated in its opinion. A writ of mandamus will not issue to compel an act already performed. State ex rel. Sharif v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 375, 376, 708 N.E.2d 718, 719. And appellees had no duty to create documents to meet Taylor s requests. State ex rel. Warren v. Warner (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 432, 433, 704 N.E.2d 1228, 1229. Judgment affirmed. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 2

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.