State ex rel. Leon v. Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Ohio
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2024State ex rel. Hayes v. Phipps Ohio Ct. App.
- 2022State v. Morrow Ohio Ct. App.
- 2022In re A.V. Ohio Ct. App.
- 2020In re Collado Ohio Ct. App.
- 2018Lykins v. Lykins Ohio Ct. App.
- 2018Young v. Norris Ohio Ct. App.
- 2017Rosalind Holmes v. Cobblestone Grove Ohio Ct. App.
- 2017Summers v. Lancia Nursing Homes, Inc. Ohio App. Ct.
- 2016State ex rel. Kimble v. Bur. of Sentence Computation Ohio Ct. App.
- 2016Sparks v. Sparks Ohio Ct. App.
Cites 3 cases
- Wellington v. Mahoning County Board of Elections
- State ex rel. Fuller v. Mengel
- Sabouri v. Ohio Department of Job & Family Services
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
The State ex rel. Leon, Appellant, v. Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Appellee.
Judges
- Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.
Attorneys
- Ricardo Leon, pro se.
- William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and James E. Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the claim of appellant, inmate Ricardo Leon, for writs of mandamus and procedendo to compel appellee, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, to resentence him. The court of appeals concluded, based on a reasonable interpretation of its own appellate rule, Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1), that Leon failed to comply with its requirement to file an affidavit “specifying the details of the claim” when he merely stated in his affidavit that his complaint was true and correct to the best of his knowledge, recollection, and belief. But cf. Wellington v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Elections, 117 Ohio St.3d 143, 2008-Ohio-554, 882 N.E.2d 420, ¶ 16-19 (court construed comparable requirement in S.Ct.Prac.R. X(4)(B) not to require repetition of statements in complaint in supporting affidavit). Notwithstanding Leon’s claims to the contrary, the mere fact that he is a pro se litigant does not entitle him to ignore the requirements of the local appellate rule. “ ‘[P]ro se litigants * * * are held to the same standard as litigants who are represented by counsel.’ ” State ex rel. Fuller v. Mengel, 100 Ohio St.3d 352, 2003-Ohio-6448, 800 N.E.2d 25, ¶ 10, quoting Sabouri v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs. (2001), 145 Ohio App.3d 651, 654, 763 N.E.2d 1238.
{¶ 2} By so holding, we need not address the merits of the court of appeals’ other reasons for denying the writs.
Judgment affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.
Ricardo Leon, pro se.
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and James E. Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.