State ex rel. Jackson v. Calabrese
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Ohio?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Ohio. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Appellant filed a motion to suppress in his criminal action. Judge Deena R. Calabrese overruled the motion in open court and indicated that she would journalize an entry on the same day. Appellant later filed this action for a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Calabrese to journalize her decision denying the motion to suppress, alleging that the entry was never filed and that he had a right to have the oral decision reduced to writing. The court of appeals granted Judge Calabrese’s motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals (1) correctly found that Appellant failed to comply with Ohio Rev. Code 2969.25(C); and (2) properly granted summary judgment because Judge Calabrese had, in fact, filed an entry on the motion to suppress that sufficiently journalized her decision overruling Jackson’s motion and therefore rendered Jackson’s action in mandamus moot.
Download PDF
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Jackson v. Calabrese, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-2918.] 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. 2015-OHIO-2918 THE STATE EX REL. JACKSON, APPELLANT, v. CALABRESE, JUDGE, APPELLEE. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Jackson v. Calabrese, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-2918.] Mandamus—R.C. 2969.25(C)—Failure to document balance of inmate account for six months preceding filing of petition—Judgment denying writ affirmed. (No. 2014-1608—Submitted April 14, 2015—Decided July 23, 2015.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 101556, 2014-Ohio-3827. _____________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} We affirm the Eighth District Court of Appeals’ granting the appellee’s motion for summary judgment in an action filed by appellant, Lawrence Jackson, for a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, Judge Deena R. Calabrese, of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, to journalize a SUPREME COURT OF OHIO decision denying a motion to suppress. The court of appeals’ judgment was proper because the complaint failed to satisfy the requirements of R.C. 2969.25(C) and because the action is moot. {¶ 2} In his complaint, Jackson claimed that he filed a motion to suppress in his criminal action on June 28, 2011. Judge Calabrese overruled the motion in open court on September 29, 2011, and indicated that she would journalize an entry on the same day. {¶ 3} Jackson alleged that the entry was never filed and that he has a right to have the oral decision reduced to writing. He also requested that the entry set forth Judge Calabrese’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. {¶ 4} Jackson filed this mandamus action on June 20, 2014, in the Eighth District Court of Appeals. Judge Calabrese filed a motion for summary judgment. The court of appeals granted the judge’s motion on September 4, 2014. Jackson appealed to this court. {¶ 5} We affirm for two reasons. First, the court of appeals correctly found that Jackson failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C). That statute requires that an inmate who seeks a waiver of the prepayment of filing fees shall also file a statement, certified by the institutional cashier, setting forth the balance of his inmate account for the six months previous to the filing of the complaint. Jackson did not file the statement. “ ‘The requirements of R.C. 2969.25 are mandatory, and failure to comply with them subjects an inmate’s action to dismissal.’ ” Boles v. Knab, 129 Ohio St.3d 222, 2011-Ohio-2859, 951 N.E.2d 389, ¶ 1, quoting State ex rel. White v. Bechtel, 99 Ohio St.3d 11, 2003-Ohio-2262, 788 N.E.2d 634, ¶ 5; State ex rel. McGrath v. McDonnell, 126 Ohio St.3d 511, 2010-Ohio-4726, 935 N.E.2d 830, ¶ 1. Moreover, even though Jackson attempted to amend his complaint to include the statement, the statute does not permit delayed statements. R.C. 2969.25(C); Boles at ¶ 2; Fuqua v. Williams, 100 Ohio St.3d 211, 2003Ohio-5533, 797 N.E.2d 982, ¶ 9. 2 January Term, 2015 {¶ 6} Second, the court of appeals properly granted summary judgment because Judge Calabrese had, in fact, filed an entry on the motion to suppress. The entry sufficiently journalized Judge Calabrese’s decision overruling Jackson’s motion and therefore rendered Jackson’s action in mandamus moot. Judgment affirmed. O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. _____________________ Lawrence B. Jackson, pro se. Timothy McGinty, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and James E. Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. _____________________ 3
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.
