State ex rel. Schreckengost v. Haas

2015 Ohio 3998

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS

STARK COUNTY, OHIO

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

JUDGES:

STATE OF OHIO, EX REL., : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. RICHARD RAY SCHRECKENGOST : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.

: Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.

Relator :

:

-vs- : Case No. 2015CA00033 :

JUDGE JOHN G. HAAS :

: OPINION

Respondent

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Mandamus

JUDGMENT: Dismissed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: September 28, 2015

APPEARANCES: For Relator For Respondent

RICHARD SCHRECKENGOST #137-291 RONALD MARK CALDWELL 2500 South Avon-Belden Road Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Grafton, OH 44044 110 Central Plaza South, Ste. 510 Canton, OH 44702

Stark County, Case No. 2015CA00033 2 Gwin, P.J.

{¶1} Relator, Richard Ray Schreckengost, has filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus against Respondent, Judge John G. Haas of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas. Relator seeks an order requiring Respondent to rule on a motion filed in the trial court titled “Motion to Correct Void Sentence/Clerical Mistake in Judgment of Sentence Pursuant to Criminal Rule 36” which was filed on December 11, 2014. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss arguing the instant complaint has become moot.

{¶2} For a writ of mandamus to issue, the Relator must have a clear legal right to the relief prayed for, the Respondent must be under a clear legal duty to perform the requested act, and Relator must have no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. State, ex rel. Berger, v. McMonagle (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 28, 6 OBR 50, 451 N.E.2d 225.

{¶3} However, the Supreme Court has held mandamus will not issue where the requested relief has been obtained, “Neither procedendo nor mandamus will compel the performance of a duty that has already been performed.” State ex rel. Kreps v. Christiansen (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 313, 318, 725 N.E.2d 663, 668.

Stark County, Case No. 2015CA00033 3

{¶4} It appears Respondent has now ruled on the December 11, 2014 motion by way of its entry dated March 16, 2015. Because Respondent has ruled on the motion in question, the instant petition has become moot. For this reason, the motion to dismiss is granted, and the instant petition is dismissed.

By Gwin, P.J., Delaney, J., and Baldwin, J., concur