State Ex Rel. Ezell v. Corrigan, Unpublished Decision (10-7-1999)
State Ex Rel. Ezell v. Corrigan, Unpublished Decision (10-7-1999)
Opinion of the Court
The requirements for mandamus are well established: 1) the relator possesses a clear legal right to the relief requested; 2) the respondent possesses a clear legal duty to perform the requested act; and 3) the relator does not possess a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel.Westchester v. Bacon (1980),
In the case sub judice, mandamus lies since the relator is entitled to a credit for any incarceration that occurred prior to conviction and sentence, the trial court possesses a clear legal duty to calculate and state in a journal entry the number of days the relator was incarcerated prior to conviction and sentence, and the relator possess no plain and adequate remedy at law. In addition, a statement or letter issued by the Cuyahoga County Sheriff, which states the number of days of pre-conviction jail time credit, does not discharge the respondent's duty to specify the amount of pre-conviction jail time credit in a journal entry. Cf. State ex rel. Wright v. Court of Common Pleas (Nov. 6, 1995), Cuyahoga App. No. 69200, unreported; State ex rel. Goolsby v.Cleary (Aug. 14, 1995), Cuyahoga App. No. 69119, unreported;State ex rel. Spruce v. Cleary (Aug. 17, 1995), Cuyahoga App. No. 69047, unreported.
Accordingly, we grant the relator's request for relief in mandamus and deny the respondent's motion for summary judgment. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this entry, the respondent is ordered to issue a journal entry that specifies the number of days the relator was incarcerated prior to conviction and sentencing in Case Nos. CR-359793 and CR-361469. Costs to respondent.
Writ allowed.
ANN DYKE, J., CONCURS.
_________________________ JAMES M. PORTER ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.