State ex rel. Williams v. Donnelly

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as State ex rel. Williams v. Donnelly, 2009-Ohio-3744.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 93419 STATE OF OHIO, EX REL., HUGH WILLIAMS RELATOR vs. JUDGE MICHAEL DONNELLY RESPONDENT JUDGMENT: COMPLAINT DISMISSED WRIT OF MANDAMUS MOTION NO. 423674 ORDER NO. 424522 RELEASE DATE: July 29, 2009 2 FOR RELATOR Hugh Williams, pro se Inmate No.552-641 P.O. Box 540 St. Clairsville, Ohio 43950 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 KENNETH A. ROCCO, J.: {¶ 1} On June 8, 2009, the relator, Hugh Williams, commenced this mandamus action against the respondent, Judge Michael Donnelly, to compel the judge to rule on his motions for jail time credit, filed on October 31, 2008, and April 2, 2009, in the underlying cases, State v. Hugh Williams, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Case Nos. CR-501482 and CR-513182. On June 29, 2009, the respondent moved for summary judgment on the grounds of mootness. Attached to the dispositive motion were certified copies of signed and file-stamped June 10, 2009 journal entries granting 131 days of jail time credit in Case No. CR-501482 and 47 days of credit in Case No. CR-513182. Williams did not timely file a response to 3 the motion for summary judgment. This establishes that the relator has received his requested relief and that the action is, therefore, moot. State ex rel. Corder v. Wilson (1991), 68 Ohio App.3d 567, 589 N.E.2d 113. {¶ 2} Accordingly, the court grants the respondent s motion for summary judgment and dismisses the application for a writ of mandamus. Costs assessed against relator. 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). KENNETH A. ROCCO, PRESIDING JUDGE JAMES J. SWEENEY, J., and LARRY A. JONES, 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.