State ex rel. Epps v. Saffold
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State ex rel. Epps v. Saffold, 2012-Ohio-4612.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 98684 STATE EX REL. CARLTON EPPS RELATOR vs. JUDGE SHIRLEY STRICKLAND SAFFOLD RESPONDENT JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED Writ of Procedendo Motion No. 457344 Order No. 458923 RELEASE DATE: October 3, 2012 FOR RELATOR Carlton Epps 2000 South Avon Belden Road Grafton, Ohio 44044 ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: James E. Moss Assistant Prosecuting Attorney The Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street, 8th Floor Cleveland, Ohio 44113 JAMES J. SWEENEY, P.J.: {¶1} On July 17, 2012, the relator, Carlton Epps, commenced this procedendo action against the respondent, Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold, to compel the judge to state the number of days he spent in jail in the underlying case, State v. Epps, Cuyahoga C. P. No. CR-546428. On February 14, 2012, and June 20, 2012, he filed motions for jail-time credit with the respondent. On August 1, 2012, the respondent moved for summary judgment on the grounds of mootness. Attached to the dispositive motion was a copy of certified journal entry, file-stamped July 24, 2012, in the underlying case, granting Epps 66 days of credit. This journal entry establishes that Epps has received his requested relief and that the action is, therefore, moot. State ex rel. Corder v. Wilson, 68 Ohio App.3d 567, 589 N.E.2d 113 (10th Dist. 1991). Epps never filed a response to the motion for summary judgment. {¶2} Accordingly, the court grants the respondent s motion for summary judgment and denies the application for a writ of procedendo. Each side to bear their own costs. This court directs the clerk of court to serve all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal as required by Civ.R. 58(B). {¶3} Writ denied. JAMES J. SWEENEY, PRESIDING JUDGE COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J., and SEAN C. GALLAGHER, 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.
