McIntosh v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as McIntosh v. State, 2002-Ohio-5979.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 81395 TROY McINTOSH vs. STATE OF OHIO : : Petitioner : : : : : : Respondent : ORIGINAL ACTION JOURNAL ENTRY and OPINION DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : OCTOBER 31, 2002 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : WRIT OF PROCEDENDO JUDGMENT : WRIT DISMISSED. Motion No. 42757 APPEARANCES: For Petitioner: ROSALIND V. TAYLOR, Esq. 620 Leader Building 526 Superior Ave., East Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1900 For Respondent: WILLIAM D. MASON Cuyahoga County Prosecutor L. CHRISTOPHER FREY, Assistant Justice Center, Courts Tower 1200 Ontario Street, Eighth Floor Cleveland, Ohio 44113 JUDGE TERRENCE O DONNELL: {¶1} On June 5, 2002, the petitioner, Troy McIntosh, commenced this procedendo action to compel the common pleas court to rule on a motion for bond pending appeal which he filed on May 16, 2002, in the underlying case, State of Ohio v. Troy McIntosh, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Case No. CR-328529. For the following reasons we dismiss this procedendo action sua sponte because it is moot. {¶2} On June 18, 2002, the trial court in the underlying case denied McIntosh s motion for bond pending appeal. (A copy of that journal entry is attached.) {¶3} A writ of procedendo is an order from a court of superior jurisdiction judgment. to one of inferior jurisdiction to proceed to See Yee v. Erie County Sheriff s Department (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 43, 553 N.E.2d 1354. Procedendo is appropriate when a court has either refused to render a judgment or has unnecessarily delayed proceeding to judgment. State ex rel. Watkins v. Eighth District Court of Appeals, 82 Ohio St.3d 532, 1998-Ohio-190, 696 N.E.2d 1079. Thus, in the present case, because the trial court has proceeded to judgment on the relevant matter, this procedendo action is moot. {¶4} with R.C. In addition, the petitioner has also failed to comply 2969.25, which requires a petitioner to supply an affidavit describing each civil action or appeal filed by the petitioner within the previous five years in any state or federal court. The failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25 warrants dismissal of the complaint for a writ. See State ex rel. Zanders v. Ohio Parole Board, 82 Ohio St.3d 421, 1998-Ohio-218, 696 N.E.2d 594 and State ex rel. Alford v. Winters, 80 Ohio St.3d 285, 1997-Ohio-117, 685 N.E.2d 1242. Further, the petitioner failed to support his complaint with an affidavit specifying the details of the claim as required by Local Rule 45(B)(1)(a). State ex rel. Wilson v. Calabrese (Jan. 18, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 70077, and State ex rel. Smith v. McMonagle (July 17, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 70899. {¶5} Accordingly, this action is dismissed. against petitioner. Costs assessed The clerk is directed to serve upon the parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. See Civ.R. 58(B). So ordered. TERRENCE O'DONNELL JUDGE PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, P.J., and JAMES J. SWEENEY, 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.
