[Cite as State ex rel. Lenard v. Russo, 2013-Ohio-829.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 99229

STATE OF OHIO EX REL., RICHARD LENARD RELATOR vs. JUDGE JOHN J. RUSSO, ET AL.

RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED

Writ of Procedendo Motion No. 461110 Order No. 462403 RELEASED DATE: March 6, 2013

FOR RELATOR Richard Lenard, Pro Se Inmate No. 570-627 Noble Correctional Institution 15708 McConnelsville Road Caldwell, Ohio 43724

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENTS Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: James E. Moss Assistant County Prosecutor 9th Floor Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113

PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, P.J.: {¶1} Richard Lenard, the relator, has filed a complaint for a writ of procedendo.

Lenard seeks an order from this court, which requires Judge John J. Russo and Judge Nancy Fuerst, the respondents, to render rulings with regard to a “motion for return and inspection of property,” and a “motion to vacate and/or correct multiple void sentences” as filed in State v. Lenard, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-463837. For the following reason, we decline to issue a writ of procedendo.

{¶2} Lenard’s motion for return and inspection of property was filed, in CR-463837, on November 29, 2005, prior to his plea of guilty entered on December 7, 2005, to one count of receiving stolen property, two counts of tampering with records, one count of telecommunications fraud, one count of forgery, two counts of theft, and one count of grand theft motor vehicle. On March 16, 2006, Lenard was sentenced.

Because Lenard’s motion for return and inspection of property was filed and pending before his plea of guilty, the motion is “deemed to be denied” upon sentencing. State ex rel. The V Cos. v. Marshall, 81 Ohio St.3d 467, 1998-Ohio-329, 692 N.E.2d 198; Jones v. Sutula, 8th Dist. No. 91296, 2008-Ohio-2777.

{¶3} In addition, Lenard’s request for a ruling, with regard to his pending motion to vacate and/or correct multiple void sentences, is moot. Attached to the respondents’ motion for summary judgment is a copy of a judgment entry, as journalized on December 14, 2012, which demonstrates that a ruling has been rendered with regard to the pending motion to vacate. Thus, the respondents have already performed their duty and once again procedendo shall not issue on behalf of Lenard. State ex rel. Fontanella v. Kontos, 117 Ohio St.3d 514, 2008-Ohio-1431, 885 N.E.2d 220; State ex rel. Howard v. Doneghy, 102 Ohio St.3d 355, 2004-Ohio-3207, 810 N.E.2d 958, ¶ 6, quoting State ex rel., Kreps v. Christiansen, 88 Ohio St.3d 313, 318, 725 N.E.2d 663 (2000).

{¶4} Accordingly, we grant the respondents’ motion for summary judgment.

Lenard to pay costs. The court directs the clerk of courts to serve all parties with notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal as required by Civ.R. 58(B).

{¶5} Writ denied.

PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, PRESIDING JUDGE MARY BOYLE, J., and KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR