State ex rel. Sherrills v. State

See case details

THE STATE EX REL. SHERRILLS, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE.

No. 00-1658

Supreme Court of Ohio

January 9, 2001—Decided March 7, 2001

91 Ohio St.3d 133 | 2001-Ohio-299

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 78261.

Mandamus sought to compel state to order that the journal in a court of appeals case reflect the truth—Habeas corpus relief sought to compel relator’s release from prison—Court of appeals’ dismissal of cause affirmed.

Daries Sherrills, pro se.

William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Diane Smilanick, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} In July 2000, appellant, inmate Daries Sherrills, filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County for a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, state of Ohio, to order that the journal in a case in that court reflect the truth and to file his brief in which he raised a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Sherrills alternatively sought a writ of habeas corpus to compel his immediate release from prison. The court of appeals sua sponte dismissed the cause.

State ex rel. Sherrills v. State (Aug. 3, 2000), Cuyahoga App. No. 78261, unreported, 2000 WL 1060605.

{¶ 2} In this cause now before the court upon Sherrills’s appeal as of right, we find that the court of appeals correctly dismissed Sherrills’s claims for extraordinary relief.

{¶ 3} As the court of appeals held, Sherrills’s complaint is defective because he failed to name the proper respondents and did not include their addresses. Civ.R. 10(A); R.C. 2725.04(B);

State ex rel. Keener v. Amberley (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 292, 293, 685 N.E.2d 1247, 1248;

State ex rel. Jackson v. Lucas Cty. (Mar. 5, 1996), Lucas App. No. L-96-049, unreported, 1996 WL 171550;

State ex rel. Lacavera v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas (Mar. 2, 2000), Cuyahoga App. No. 77359, unreported, 2000 WL 235748 (“although the State of Ohio is listed as the respondent [in relator’s mandamus action], he seeks relief from the ‘clerk of courts’ and the ‘court’ ”).

{¶ 4} Moreover, to the extent that Sherrills requests a writ of habeas corpus, he failed to attach his commitment papers to his complaint. R.C. 2725.04(D);

Sidle v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 520, 733 N.E.2d 1115.

{¶ 5} Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.¹

Judgment affirmed.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.

Notes

1

We also deny Sherrills’s motions to supplement and amend the record.

Case Details

Case Name: State ex rel. Sherrills v. State

Court Name: Ohio Supreme Court

Date Published: Mar 6, 2001

Citation: 91 Ohio St. 3d 133

Docket Number: 2000-1658

Court Abbreviation: Ohio