.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 102834
WILLIAM MORALEVITZ
RELATOR
vs.
THE HONORABLE DANIEL GAUL
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT:
WRIT DENIED
Writ of Procedendo
Motion No. 484967
Order No. 487134
RELEASE DATE: September 11, 2015
FOR RELATOR
William Moralevitz, pro se
Inmate #155102
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 5500
Chillicothe, OH 45601
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: James E. Moss
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
The Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, OH 44113
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J.:
{¶1} In the underlying case, State v. Moralevitz, Cuyahoga C.P. No.
CR-79-046208-ZA, in 1979, a jury found Moralevitz guilty of kidnapping and three
counts of gross sexual imposition against a seven-year-old girl. The trial court imposed
consecutive sentences of 5 to 15 years for kidnapping and 3 to 10 years for the gross
sexual imposition counts. On appeal, this court affirmed the convictions. State v.
Moralevitz,
(8th Dist. 1980). In 1979, Moralevitz
also filed a petition for relief from judgment that the trial court denied within a month.
Moralevitz then moved to vacate the judgment and for court records without costs. The
trial court ruled that the motion for court records was moot and denied his motion for
postconviction relief in 1982. In 1985, Moralevitz filed a motion for a trial transcript.
When the trial court denied that motion, Moralevitz commenced a mandamus action to
reverse his convictions because the trial court had improperly denied him access to his
transcript. This court dismissed the mandamus action. State ex rel. Moralevitz v.
Jones, 8th Dist. Cuyhoga No. 51276 (Dec. 23, 1985).
{¶2} On September 22, 2014, Moralevitz filed a motion for discovery in the
underlying case. When the trial court did not rule on this motion, Moralevitz on April 2,
2015, commenced this procedendo action against the respondent, Judge Daniel Gaul, to
compel the judge to rule on the motion so he “can continue to litigate this matter before
the Court.” (Moralevitz’s complaint for procedendo.) On April 15, 2015, the
respondent judge denied the subject motion. Noting that Moralevitz sought the
discovery to appeal, Judge Gaul reasoned that because Moralevitz’s convictions had
already been appealed and affirmed, the subject motion for discovery was a nullity.
This journal entry, attached to the judge’s motion for summary judgment, establishes that
he has proceeded to judgment on the subject motion and that this procedendo action is
moot.
{¶3} Accordingly, the court grants the respondent’s motion for summary
judgment and denies the writ. Costs assessed against relator. The clerk is directed to
serve upon the parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal.
Civ.R. 58(B).
{¶4} Writ denied.
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, JUDGE
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., A.J., and
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR
