State ex rel. Lee v. Hall, (Ohio 2008)

Ohio Supreme Court

Linked as:

Summary


Writ of Procedendo

Summary


Writ of Procedendo

Text




[Cite as State ex rel. Lee v. Hall, 2008-Ohio-5334.]

COURT OF APPEALS MORROW COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO, EX REL., :

JUDGES: BRIAN A. LEE :

:

Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.

Petitioner :

Hon. John W. Wise, J. -vs-

: Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J.

: HOWARD E. HALL, JUDGE :

: CASE NO. 08-CA-6 Respondent :

:

OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Petition for Writ of Procedendo

JUDGMENT: WRIT DISMISSED

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: October 2, 2008

APPEARANCES:

For Petitioner ­ pro se: For Respondent:

BRIAN A. LEE - #427-325 BRENT W. YAGER Pickaway Correctional Inst.

Morrow County Assistant Prosecutor P.O. Box 209 60 East High Street Orient, OH 43146-0209 Mt. Gilead, OH

- 1 -

Morrow County, Case No. 08-CA-6

2

Edwards, J.,

On May 13, 2008, Petitioner Brian Lee filed a Complaint for Writ of Procedendo requesting the trial court be ordered to rule on Petitioner's "Motion for Reduction of Prison term for Related Days of Confinement." The motion was filed with the trial court on October 26, 2007. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss suggesting the relief requested has been rendered by the trial court; therefore, the Complaint is moot. Petitioner has not filed a response to the motion to dismiss. The trial court issued a ruling on Petitioner's underlying motion on June 3, 2008.

To be entitled to the issuance of a writ of mandamus, the Petitioner must demonstrate: (1) a clear legal right to the relief prayed for; (2) a clear legal duty on the respondent's part to perform the act; and, (3) that there exists no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel. Master v. Cleveland (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 23, 26-27, 661 N.E.2d 180; State ex rel. Harris v. Rhodes (1978), 5 Ohio St.2d 41, 324 N.E.2d 641, citing State ex rel. National City Bank v. Bd. of Education (1977), 520 Ohio St.2d 81, 369 N.E.2d 1200.

The Supreme Court held in Madsen, "Mandamus will not issue to compel an act that has already been performed." State ex rel. Scruggs v. Sadler, 102 Ohio St.3d 160, 2004-Ohio-2054, 807 N.E.2d 357, ¶ 5. State ex rel. Madsen v. Jones (2005), 106 Ohio St.3d 178, *179, 833 N.E.2d 291, **292.

Because the relief sought has already been rendered by the trial court, Petitioner has no clear right to the relief prayed for, and the Respondent has no clear legal duty to perform an act which it has already performed. State ex rel. Lewis v.

- 2 -

Morrow County, Case No. 08-CA-6

3

Boggins, 2007 WL 4395630 (Ohio App. 5 Dist.). Therefore, we find the Petition for Writ of Procedendo must be dismissed.

WRIT DISMISSED.

COSTS TO PETITIONER.

By: Edwards, J.

Gwin, P.J. and Wise, J. concur

____________________

HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS

____________________

HON.

W.

SCOTT GWIN

____________________

HON.

JOHN W.

WISE

- 3 -

[Cite as State ex rel. Lee v. Hall, 2008-Ohio-5334.]

COURT OF APPEALS MORROW COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO, EX REL., :

BRIAN A. LEE :

:

Petitioner : CASE NO. 08-CA-6 -vs-

:

: HOWARD E. HALL :

:

Respondent :

:

JUDGMENT ENTRY

For the reasons stated in the Memorandum-Opinion on file, Petitioner's Writ of Procedendo is hereby dismissed. Costs taxed to Petitioner.

____________________

HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS

____________________

HON.

W.

SCOTT GWIN

____________________

HON.

JOHN W.

WISE

- 4 -

Sponsored links




ver las páginas en versión mobile | web

ver las páginas en versión mobile | web

© Copyright 2012, vLex. All Rights Reserved.

Contents in vLex United States

Explore vLex

For Professionals

For Partners

Company