State ex rel. Brooks v. Saffold
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State ex rel. Brooks v. Saffold, 2009-Ohio-5705.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 93963 STATE OF OHIO, EX REL., ULIOUS BROOKS RELATOR vs. JUDGE SHIRLEY SAFFOLD RESPONDENT JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED WRIT OF PROCEDENDO MOTION NO. 427206 ORDER NO. 427091 RELEASE DATE: FOR RELATOR October 23, 2009 2 Ulious Brooks, pro se Inmate No. 453-172 S.O.C.F. P.O. Box 45699 Lucasville, Ohio 45699 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 CHRISTINE T. MCMONAGLE, J.: {¶ 1} Ulious Brooks has filed a complaint for a writ of procedendo. Brooks seeks an order from this court that requires Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold to re-sentence him in conformity with the opinion of this court in State v. Brooks, Cuyahoga App. No. 83668, 2005-Ohio-3567. Specifically, Brooks seeks resentencing based upon our judgment, which vacated the fine of $20,000 originally imposed by the trial court. For the following reasons, we grant Judge Saffold s motion for summary judgment, and decline to issue a writ of procedendo. 3 {¶ 2} Initially, we find that Brooks has failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25, which requires the attachment of an affidavit to the complaint for a writ of mandamus that describes each civil action or appeal filed within the previous five years in any state or federal court. Brooks s failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25 warrants the dismissal of the complaint for a writ of procedendo. State ex rel. Zanders v. Ohio Parole Bd., 82 Ohio St.3d 421, 1998-Ohio-218, 696 N.E.2d 594; Alford v. Winters, 80 Ohio St.3d 285, 1997-Ohio-117, 685 N.E.2d 1242. It must also be noted that Brooks has failed to comply with Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a), which mandates that his complaint for a writ of procedendo must be supported by an affidavit that specifies the details of the claim. State ex rel. Smith v. McMonagle (July 17, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 70899; State ex rel. Calabrese (Jan. 18, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 70077. {¶ 3} Finally, Brooks s request for a writ of procedendo is moot. The Supreme Court of Ohio, in In re Ohio Criminal Sentencing Statutes Cases, 109 Ohio St.3d 313, 2006-Ohio-2109, 847 N.E.2d 1174, reversed this court s judgment in State v. Brooks, supra, and remanded the matter directly to the trial court for resentencing. Upon remand, the trial court resentenced Brooks and did not impose any monetary fine, with the exception of court 4 costs. See sentencing journal entry as journalized on June 23, 2006, in Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-435228. Brooks s request for a writ of procedendo is moot. State ex rel. Jerninghan v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 74 Ohio St.3d 278, 1996-Ohio-117, 658 N.E.2d 723; State ex rel. Snider v. Stapleton (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 40, 600 N.E.2d 240; State ex rel. Richard v. Wells (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 76, 591 N.E.2d 1240; State ex rel. Gantt v. Coleman (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 5, 450 N.E.2d 1163. {¶ 4} Accordingly, we grant Judge Saffold s motion for summary judgment. Costs to Brooks. It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Eighth District Court of Appeals serve notice of this judgment upon all parties as required by Civ.R. 58(B). Writ denied. CHRISTINE T. MCMONAGLE, JUDGE COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, A.J., and MARY EILEEN KILBANE, 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.
