597 N.E.2d 166, 167Supreme Court of Ohio.
1992.
MOTION DOCKET Wednesday, August 19, 1992 90-1914. State v. Franklin. Hamilton County, No. C-890028. UPON CONSIDERATION of the motion filed by counsel for appellant to stay the execution of sentence in the above-styled cause pending the exhaustion of state post-conviction remedies,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that said motion be, and the same is hereby, granted, effective August 18, 1992.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that said stay is granted for a period of six months to allow appellant an opportunity to file a petition for post-conviction relief. Absent such a filing within said time period, this stay will expire, and no further time will be granted except in unusual circumstances.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that if a petition for post-conviction relief has been filed within the time allotted, a date-stamped copy of such petition shall be filed by appellant with the Clerk of this court, and this stay shall remain in effect until exhaustion of all state post-conviction proceedings, including any appeals.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that the compliance with the mandate and execution of sentence be, and the same are hereby, stayed for a period of six months or, if a petition for post-conviction relief is filed within that time period, pending the exhaustion of all proceedings for post-conviction relief before courts of this state.
92-1205. State ex rel. Taylor v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. In Mandamus. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of mandamus. Upon consideration of respondent’s motion to take the deposition of Patrick Taylor, an inmate incarcerated at the Chillicothe Correctional Institution,
Page 1448
IT IS ORDERED by the court that said motion to take deposition be, and the same is hereby, granted, effective August 12, 1992.
92-1346. State ex rel. Crenshaw v. Morris. In Mandamus. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of mandamus. Upon consideration of respondents’ motion to take the deposition of Donald Crenshaw, an inmate incarcerated at the Chillicothe Correctional Institution,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that said motion to take deposition be, and the same is hereby, granted, effective August 12, 1992.
DOUGLAS, J., dissents and would dismiss the cause because there is an adequate remedy at law.
92-1531. State ex rel. Reichenbach v. Routson. In Mandamus. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of mandamus. Upon consideration of relator’s motion for stay,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that said motion for stay be, and the same is hereby, denied, effective August 11, 1992.
WRIGHT, J., not participating.
92-1577. George v. Coyne. In Quo Warranto. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of quo warranto. Upon consideration of relator’s request for temporary restraining order,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that said motion for temporary restraining order be, and the same is hereby, denied, effective August 12, 1992.