State ex rel. Mooney v. Irving

2011 Ohio 686

Opinion

[Cite as State ex rel. Mooney v. Irving, 2011-Ohio-686.]

COURT OF APPEALS HOLMES COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. JUDGES: SANDRA L. MOONEY Hon. John W. Wise, P. J. Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J. Relator Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.

-vs-

JANE IRVING, JUDGE OF THE Case No. 10 CA 021 HOLMES COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT

Respondent OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Petition for Writ of Procedendo

JUDGMENT: Denied

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: February 15, 2011

APPEARANCES:

For Relator For Respondent

JOSEPH F. SALZGEBER STEPHEN D. KNOWLING Post Office Box 799 PROSECUTING ATTORNEY Brunswick, Ohio 44212-0799 CHRISTINE C. WILLIAMS ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR 164 East Jackson Street Millersburg, Ohio 44654 Holmes County, Case No. 10 CA 021 2

Wise, P. J.

{¶1} Relator, Sandra Mooney, has filed a petition requesting this Court issue a

writ of procedendo compelling Judge Jane Irving of the Holmes County Municipal Court

to issue a sentencing entry in Case Number CRB 0800431.

{¶2} The instant complaint was filed on November 9, 2010. The trial court

issued a ruling on the motion in the criminal cases on September 14, 2010, however, it

does not appear Relator was aware of the fact the entry had been issued. Since the

filing of this Complaint, Relator has become aware of the entry and was granted leave

to pursue a delayed appeal in Holmes County Case Number 10CA22. Despite having

been granted leave to pursue the appeal, Relator has not dismissed the instant case,

therefore, we will address the merits of the petition.

{¶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

petition for writ of procedendo is moot and deny the Petition. Holmes County, Case No. 10 CA 021 3

{¶5} PETITION DENIED.

{¶6} COSTS TO RELATOR.

{¶7} IT IS SO ORDERED.

By: Wise, P. J.

Edwards, J., and

Delaney, J., concur.

___________________________________

JUDGES JWW/d 0114 Holmes County, Case No. 10 CA 021 4

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR HOLMES COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. : SANDRA L. MOONEY : : Relator : : -vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY : JANE IRVING, JUDGE OF THE : HOLMES COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT : : Respondent : Case No. 10 CA 021

For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the petition

for writ of procedendo is moot and the petition is denied.

Costs assessed to Relator.

JUDGES