State ex rel. Carlton v. Heekin
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Carlton v. Heekin, Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-2822.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published. SLIP OPINION NO. 2021-OHIO-2822 THE STATE EX REL. CARLTON v. HEEKIN, JUDGE. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Carlton v. Heekin, Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-2822.] Mandamus—Writ sought to compel judge to direct county clerk of courts to mail copy of judgment entry on a motion to vacate costs and fines to the movant— Writ will not issue when judge has already complied with the request—Writ denied. (No. 2021-0080—Submitted June 15, 2021—Decided August 19, 2021.) IN MANDAMUS. ________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} In January 2021, relator, Damian Carlton, filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel respondent, Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Judge Thomas Heekin, to direct the Hamilton County Clerk of Courts to serve Carlton with a judgment entry. In April 2021, we denied Judge Heekin’s motion to SUPREME COURT OF OHIO dismiss the mandamus complaint and granted an alternative writ. 162 Ohio St.3d 1426, 2021-Ohio-1202, 166 N.E.3d 25. {¶ 2} Carlton seeks a writ from this court ordering Judge Heekin to direct the clerk to serve him with the judgment entry denying his motion to vacate costs and fines. Carlton alleges that Judge Heekin rendered the judgment in June 2020 but did not direct the clerk to mail a copy of the judgment entry to him. Carlton contends that he needs a copy of the judgment entry so that he will have notice of the denial and can appeal the entry. {¶ 3} Judge Heekin has submitted evidence of an entry dated May 3, 2021, in which he directed the clerk to serve Carlton with the June 30, 2020 judgment entry overruling Carlton’s motion to vacate costs and fines. Because Judge Heekin has performed the act that Carlton has requested through his mandamus complaint, this case is now moot. See State ex rel. Jerninghan v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 74 Ohio St.3d 278, 279, 658 N.E.2d 723 (1996) (“A writ of mandamus will not issue to compel an act already performed”). {¶ 4} We therefore deny as moot Carlton’s complaint for a writ of mandamus. Writ denied. O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, and BRUNNER, JJ., concur. FISCHER, J., not participating. _________________ Damian Carlton, pro se. Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Sean M. Donovan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent. _________________ 2
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.
