State ex rel. Carrington v. Saffold
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State ex rel. Carrington v. Saffold, 2018-Ohio-5241.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 107715 STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. JEROME CARRINGTON RELATOR vs. SHIRLEY STRICKLAND SAFFOLD, JUDGE RESPONDENT JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED Writ of Procedendo Motion No. 522380 Order No. 523530 RELEASE DATE: December 19, 2018 FOR RELATOR Jerome Carrington, pro se Inmate No. A650763 Lake Erie Correctional Institution P.O. Box 8000 Conneaut, Ohio 44030 ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT Michael C. O’Malley Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: James E. Moss Assistant County Prosecutor The Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J.: {¶1} On September 26, 2018, the relator, Jerome Carrington, commenced this procedendo action against the respondent, Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold, to compel a ruling pursuant to his February 15, 2018 motion to request a final, appealable order that he filed in the underlying case, State v. Carrington, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-13-576758-A.1 On October 25, 2018, the respondent judge, through the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor, moved for summary judgment on the grounds of mootness and procedural defects. Attached to the dispositive motion was a copy of a certified judgment entry, file-stamped October 10, 2018, in which the judge denied the subject motion. Carrington has not filed a brief in opposition. The court 1 In the underlying case, Carrington pleaded guilty to two counts of felonious assault with firearm specifications. The trial court sentenced him to 19 years: three years for the firearm specifications and eight years consecutive for each count of felonious assault. Although the judge made the necessary findings for consecutive sentences during the sentencing hearing, she did not incorporate them into the sentencing entry. Thus, on appeal, this court remanded to the trial court for a nunc pro tunc entry incorporating the necessary findings. State v. Carrington, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100918, 2014-Ohio-4575. The trial court appears to have done this in a June 2, 2016 journal notes that he has appealed that denial. State v. Carrington, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 107887. The October 10, 2018 journal entry establishes that the judge has proceeded to judgment on the outstanding motion and that this writ action is moot. {¶2} Relator also did not comply with R.C. 2969.25(C), which requires that an inmate file a certified statement from his prison cashier setting forth the balance in his private account for each of the preceding six months. This also is sufficient reason to deny the mandamus, deny indigency status, and assess costs against the relator. State ex rel. Pamer v. Collier, 108 Ohio St.3d 492, 2006-Ohio-1507, 844 N.E.2d 842; State ex rel. Hunter v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 88 Ohio St.3d 176, 2000-Ohio-285, 724 N.E.2d 420; and Hazel v. Knab, 130 Ohio St.3d 22, 2011-Ohio-4608, 955 N.E.2d 378 — the defect may not be cured by subsequent filings. {¶3} Accordingly, this court grants the respondent judge’s motion for summary judgment and denies the application for a writ of procedendo. Relator to pay costs. This court directs the clerk of courts to serve all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal as required by Civ.R. 58(B). {¶4} Writ denied. KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, JUDGE MELODY J. STEWART, P.J., and ANITA LASTER MAYS, J., CONCUR entry.
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.
