State Ex Rel. Lee v. Hall, 08-Ca-6 (10-2-2008)

Ohio Court of Appeals

State Ex Rel. Lee v. Hall, 08-Ca-6 (10-2-2008)

2008 Ohio 5334

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 2, 2008

DocketNo. 08-CA-6.

StatusPublished

This text of 2008 Ohio 5334 (State Ex Rel. Lee v. Hall, 08-Ca-6 (10-2-2008)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State Ex Rel. Lee v. Hall, 08-Ca-6 (10-2-2008), 2008 Ohio 5334 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION *Page 2 {¶ 1} 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.

{¶ 2} 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.

{¶ 3} 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.

{¶ 4} 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. *Page 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.

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

JUDGMENT ENTRY For the reasons stated in the Memorandum-Opinion on file, Petitioner's Writ of Procedendo is hereby dismissed. Costs taxed to Petitioner. *Page 1

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION *Page 2 {¶ 1} 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.

{¶ 2} 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.