Summary
relying on evidence submitted by the parties on appeal to conclude that a case was moot
Summary of this case from State ex rel. Ames v. Summit Cnty. Court of Common PleasOpinion
No. 91-1919
Submitted January 21, 1992 —
Decided June 17, 1992.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 62214.
On August 5, 1991, appellant, Donald L. Richard, Sr., filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus in the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, alleging that appellee, Judge Lesley Brooks Wells, had a clear duty to act on appellant's "motion for relief from order or judgment and grant a hearing pursuant to Civ. R. 60." The motion sought relief from a previous order of appellee, which denied appellant a new trial in an underlying case, No. CR-214217, in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County.
Before appellee could respond to the complaint in mandamus, the court of appeals dismissed it, stating that "there has been no activity in case No. CR-214217 since 1989."
The cause is before the court upon an appeal as a matter of right.
Donald L. Richard, Sr., pro se. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Prosecuting Attorney, and Laurence R. Snyder, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
On appeal, appellant submits "evidence" that he did in fact file the motion in question in the court of common pleas on April 30, 1991. Similarly, appellee submits "evidence" that the motion was denied on May 14, 1991, and argues that the mandamus action is now moot.
In Miner v. Witt (1910), 82 Ohio St. 237, 92 N.E. 21, we allowed facts outside the record to show that a case had become moot. Accordingly, we find that the cause is moot, and on that basis we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.