[Cite as State ex rel. Davis v. Saffold,

.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 100742

STATE OF OHIO, EX REL., ROBERT DAVIS

RELATOR

vs.

JUDGE SHIRLEY STRICKLAND SAFFOLD

RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED

Writ of Procedendo Motion No. 471247 Order No. 471397

RELEASE DATE: January 29, 2014 FOR RELATOR

Robert Davis, pro se Grafton Reintegration Center, #A572-537 2500 South Avon-Belden Road Grafton, Ohio 44044

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT

Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor BY: James E. Moss 8th Floor Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 MARY J. BOYLE, A.J.:

{¶1} Robert Davis has filed a complaint for a writ of procedendo. Davis seeks

an order from this court that requires Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold to “proceed to

judgment as ordered by the Court of Appeals, Eighth Appellate District in Appeal No.

99376, filed on November 7, 2013, for the purpose of remand for execution of sentence.”

Judge Saffold has filed a motion for summary judgment, which we grant for the

following reasons.

{¶2} Initially, we find that Davis’s complaint for a writ of procedendo is

defective. Davis has failed to provide this court with a sworn affidavit, required by

Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a), that specifies the details of the complaint. State ex rel. Mayes v.

Ambrose, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 91980,

; James v. Callahan, 8th Dist.

Cuyahoga No. 89654,

. In addition, Davis has failed to comply with

R.C. 2969.25(C), which requires a statement that: (1) sets forth the balance in his inmate

account for the preceding six months, as certified by the institutional cashier; and (2) a

statement that sets forth all other cash and things of value as owned by the inmate.

{¶3} Finally, Davis has failed to establish that he is entitled to a writ of

procedendo, based upon the appellate judgment rendered in State v. Davis, 8th Dist.

Cuyahoga No. 99376,

. In Davis, this court addressed one assignment of

error that dealt with the issue of whether “[t]he sentencing court erred and acted contrary

to law when it filed a nunc pro tunc judgment entry for purposes other than correcting clerical mistakes as permitted by Rule 36 of the Ohio Criminal Rules of Procedure.” On

appeal, this court found that Davis’s sole assignment of error was not well taken based

upon the doctrine of res judicata and that Judge Saffold had properly employed a nunc pro

tunc entry to clarify that Davis was subject to incarceration for a period of eight years.

The appeal was not remanded to Judge Saffold for any further proceedings or for the

entry of any additional judgments. Thus, Davis has failed to establish that he is entitled

to a writ of procedendo. State ex rel. Sherrills v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common

Pleas,

,

,

.

{¶4} Accordingly, we grant Judge Saffold’s motion for summary judgment.

Costs to Davis. The court directs the clerk of court to serve all parties with notice of this

judgment and the date of entry upon the journal as required by Civ.R. 58(B).

{¶5} Writ denied.

_____________________________________________ MARY J. BOYLE, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., and TIM McCORMACK, J., CONCUR