State ex rel. Sevayega v. McMonagle
This text of 2009 Ohio 2367 (State ex rel. Sevayega v. McMonagle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the complaint of appellant, Reginald D. Sevayega, for a writ of procedendo. A writ of procedendo will not issue to compel the performance of a duty that has already been performed. State ex rel. Howard v. Show, 102 Ohio St.3d 423, 2004-Ohio-3652, 811 N.E.2d 1128, ¶ 9. Moreover, insofar as Sevayega contests the propriety of the ruling he received on his postconviction motion, he had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law by way of appeal. Extraordinary relief in procedendo will not be granted if there is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel. George v. Burnside, 118 Ohio St.3d 406, 2008-Ohio-2702, 889 N.E.2d 533, ¶ 7.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2009 Ohio 2367, 907 N.E.2d 1180, 122 Ohio St. 3d 54, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-sevayega-v-mcmonagle-ohio-2009.