State ex rel. Parker v. Corrigan
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State ex rel. Parker v. Corrigan, 2020-Ohio-3731.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA STATE EX REL. DONNELL PARKER, Relator, : : No. 109721 v. : PETER CORRIGAN, JUDGE, : Respondent. : JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED DATED: July 13, 2020 Writ of Procedendo Motion No. 539128 Order No. 539601 Appearances: Donnell Parker, pro se. Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and James E. Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent. PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, P.J.: On May 14, 2020, the relator, Donnell Parker, commenced this procedendo action against the respondent, Judge Peter Corrigan. He seeks to compel the judge to rule on his August 15, 2019 “motion to vacate the void March 16, 1998 amended nunc pro tunc journal entry” and his March 5, 2020 “motion for judgment on the pleadings,” which he filed in the underlying case, State v. Parker, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-96-337574-ZA. On June 8, 2020, the respondent judge moved for summary judgment. On June 25, 2020, Parker filed his opposition. For the following reasons, this court grants the respondent’s dispositive motion and denies the application for a writ of procedendo. The respondent moved for summary judgment on the grounds of mootness. Attached to this motion is a certified copy of a May 29, 2020 journal entry that denies both subject motions. The judge explained that the issues concerning the nunc pro tunc entry had already been litigated and was, thus, res judicata. Parker argues that because his procedendo action was pending with this court, the respondent lost jurisdiction to rule on the subject motions. “This contention is without merit. * * * the filing of the petitions for said writs * * * had no effect on the jurisdiction of the trial court.” Mihal v. Sargis, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 49532, 1985 Ohio App. LEXIS 8792, 6-8 (Oct. 3, 1985). The attached journal entries establish that the respondent has proceeded to judgment on the subject motions and that Parker has received his requested relief. This case is moot. Accordingly, this court grants the respondent’s motion for summary judgment and denies the application for a writ of procedendo. Relator to pay costs. The court instructs the clerk to serve upon the parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. Civ.R. 58(B). Writ denied. ____________________________________ PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, PRESIDING JUDGE LARRY A. JONES, SR., J., and EILEEN A. 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.
