THE STATE EX REL. CHATFIELD, APPELLANT, v. GAMMILL, CHIEF, APPELLEE.
No. 2011-1843
Supreme Court of Ohio
Submitted April 24, 2012—Decided May 1, 2012.
132 Ohio St.3d 36, 2012-Ohio-1862
{13} The court of appeals did not abuse its discretion in denying Compton‘s motion because any order to сomply with
{14} Moreover, Compton waived his claim that Judge Sutula could not rely on a nunc pro tunc order to rectify any error in his sentencing entry because he failed to raise thе claim in the court of appeals. See State ex rel. DeGroot v. Tilsley, 128 Ohio St.3d 311, 2011-Ohio-231, 943 N.E.2d 1018, ¶ 9.
{15} Finally, Compton‘s claims concerning jail-time credit were rendered moot when he was released from prison. State ex rel. Gordon v. Murphy, 112 Ohio St.3d 329, 2006-Ohio-6572, 859 N.E.2d 928, ¶ 6.
Judgment affirmed.
O‘CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O‘DONNELL, LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur.
John Compton, pro se.
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and James E. Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
{1 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the request of appellant, inmate James L. Chatfield, for a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, Stephen Gammill, chief of police of the city of Columbus, Ohio, to prоvide him with access to any records relating to the theft and impoundment of a white Ford Explorer allegedly being driven by Christоpher Carter in November 2007.
{1 2} Chatfield obtained the required judicial finding pursuant to
{1 3} Thereafter, the Columbus Division оf Police responded to the request by indicating that it did not have any records regarding the specified incident. The officer responding to Chatfield‘s request opined that records regarding the incident did not exist because neither Chatfield nor Carter had been arrested by Columbus police. The police have “no duty to create or provide аccess to nonexistent records.” State ex rel. Striker v. Smith, 129 Ohio St.3d 168, 2011-Ohio-2878, 950 N.E.2d 952, ¶ 25, quoting State ex rel. Lanham v. Smith, 112 Ohio St.3d 527, 2007-Ohio-609, 861 N.E.2d 530, ¶ 15. None of Chatfield‘s аssertions on appeal alter this dispositive fact, and because the police chief submitted an uncontrоverted affidavit exhibiting that the police did not have the rеquested records and Chatfield failed to set forth speсific facts showing the existence of a genuine triable issuе, summary judgment in favor of the police chief was apрropriate. See State ex rel. Trafalgar Corp. v. Miami Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 104 Ohio St.3d 350, 2004-Ohio-6406, 819 N.E.2d 1040, ¶ 27.
Judgment affirmed.
O‘CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O‘DONNELL, LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur.
James L. Chatfield, pro se.
Richard C. Pfeiffer Jr., Columbus City Attorney, and Glenn B. Redick, Chief Litigation Attorney, for appellee.