Narrative Opinion Summary
Sammy Montanez filed a complaint for a writ of procedendo against Judge John D. Sutula, seeking to compel the judge to rule on a motion for re-sentencing related to his case (State v. Montanez, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-04-454739-A) under State v. Hunter, 2010-Ohio-657. Judge Sutula filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted, demonstrating that he had already denied Montanez’s motion for resentencing in a judgment entry dated July 27, 2022. The court determined that the writ of procedendo was moot as it cannot compel the performance of a duty that has already been fulfilled. Consequently, the court granted Judge Sutula's motion for summary judgment, waived costs, and directed the clerk of courts to notify all parties of the judgment. The writ was denied.
Legal Issues Addressed
Notification of Judgmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court must notify all parties of the judgment following a decision on a motion.
Reasoning: Consequently, the court granted Judge Sutula's motion for summary judgment, waived costs, and directed the clerk of courts to notify all parties of the judgment.
Summary Judgmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Reasoning: Judge Sutula filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted, demonstrating that he had already denied Montanez’s motion for resentencing in a judgment entry dated July 27, 2022.
Writ of Procedendosubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: A writ of procedendo cannot be issued to compel a judge to perform a duty that has already been completed.
Reasoning: The court determined that the writ of procedendo was moot as it cannot compel the performance of a duty that has already been fulfilled.