Hill v. Cottrill
Opinion
[Cite as Hill v. Cottrill, 2012-Ohio-4581.]
COURT OF APPEALS MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
MATTHEW HILL. : JUDGES: : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J. Relator : Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. : Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J. -vs- : : Case No. CT12-0036 KELLY COTTRILL, JUDGE, ET AL : : Respondents : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Mandamus
JUDGMENT: Dismissed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: September 27, 2012
APPEARANCES:
For Relator For Respondents
MATTHEW HILL NONE N.C.I. #478-775 15708 McConnelsville Road Caldwell, Ohio 43724 Muskingum County, Case No. CT12-0036 2
Farmer, J.
{¶1} Relator, Matthew Hill, has filed a complaint for writ of mandamus
requesting this Court to issue a writ requiring Respondent to rule on a motion for
appointment of counsel and motion for transcript at state expense filed in the trial court.
{¶2} Subsequent to the filing of the instant of Complaint, the trial court issued
an order appointing an attorney to represent Relator in his criminal appeal.
{¶3} The Supreme Court has held, “Neither procedendo nor mandamus will
compel the performance of a duty that has already been performed. State ex rel. Grove
v. Nadel (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 252, 253, 703 N.E.2d 304, 305.” State ex rel. Kreps v.
Christiansen (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 313, 318, 725 N.E.2d 663, 668.
{¶4} Because the requested relief has already been obtained, we find the
complaint for writ of mandamus is moot.
{¶5} We also note Relator had an adequate remedy at law by way of filing a
motion for appointment of counsel and motion for transcript in this Court. Muskingum County, Case No. CT12-0036 3
{¶6} For these reasons, the requested writ will not issue and the cause is
dismissed.
.
By Farmer, J.
Delaney, P.J. and
Edwards, J. concur.
s / Sheila G. Farmer______________
s / Patricia A. Delaney_____________
s / Julie A. Edwards_______________
JUDGES
SGF/as 905 [Cite as Hill v. Cottrill, 2012-Ohio-4581.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
MATTHEW HILL : : Relator : : -vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY : KELLY COTTRILL, JUDGE, ET AL : : Respondents : CASE NO. CT12-0036
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the
requested writ will not issue and the cause is dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2012 Ohio 4581 (Hill v. Cottrill) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.