State ex rel. Tenney v. Rice

2024 Ohio 1116

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 25, 2024
• Docket: 2024-T-0015
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State ex rel. Tenney v. Rice, 2024-Ohio-1116.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT TRUMBULL COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO ex rel. CASE NO. 2024-T-0015 MICHAEL TENNEY,

Relator, Original Action for Procedendo

- vs -

THE HONORABLE JUDGE RONALD RICE,

Respondent.

PER CURIAM OPINION

Decided: March 25, 2024 Judgment: Complaint dismissed

Michael Tenney, pro se, PID# A704-630, Trumbull Correctional Institution, 5701 Burnett Street, P.O. Box 901, Leavittsburg, OH 44430 (Relator).

Dennis Watkins, Trumbull County Prosecutor, and Ryan J. Sanders, Assistant Prosecutor, Administration Building, Fourth Floor, 160 High Street, N.W., Warren, OH 44481 (For Respondent).

PER CURIAM.

{¶1} Pending before this Court are the following: Relator, Michael Tenney’s,

Motion Compelling an Issuance of a Valid Control Number filed on February 20, 2024;

Respondent, the Honorable Ronald J. Rice’s, Motion to Dismiss Relator’s Motion for Writ

of Procedendo filed on February 22, 2024; and Tenney’s Motion Compelling a Sua

Sponte Dismissal/Vacate of Appeal in Regards to 2018-T-0019 filed on February 23,

2024. {¶2} Tenney’s Complaint for Writ of Procedendo asks this Court to order Judge

Rice to rule on a pending Motion for Final Appealable Order, filed November 8, 2023, in

a case pending before him, State v. Tenney, Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas

No. 2017-CR-159.

{¶3} As grounds for dismissal, Judge Rice argues that the Motion for Final

Appealable Order was ruled upon and denied on February 21, 2024. “An action in

procedendo becomes moot when the court performs the duty requested.” State ex rel.

Roberts v. Hatheway, 166 Ohio St.3d 531, 2021-Ohio-4097, 188 N.E.3d 150, ¶ 5.

{¶4} In opposition to dismissal, Tenney argues that this matter is not moot

inasmuch as a final order has never been entered in State v. Tenney, Trumbull County

Court of Common Pleas No. 2017-CR-159. Tenney requests this Court to vacate its

decision in State v. Tenney, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2018-T-0019, 2019-Ohio-927, and

issue an order “to compel Respondent to issue a sentencing entry that complies with

Crim.R. 32(C) and constitutes a final appealable order.”

{¶5} “A writ of procedendo is appropriate when a court has either refused to

render a judgment or has unnecessarily delayed in proceeding to judgment.” State ex

rel. Weiss v. Hoover, 84 Ohio St.3d 530, 532, 705 N.E.2d 1227 (1999). The Supreme

Court of Ohio has recognized that a defendant “has a substantial right to a judgment of

conviction that satisfies the requirements of Crim.R. 32” and that the denial of a motion

for an entry that complies with Crim.R. 32 affects that substantial right. State ex rel.

Daniels v. Russo, 156 Ohio St.3d 143, 2018-Ohio-5194, 123 N.E.3d 1011, ¶ 11.

However, procedendo is not the appropriate means of vindicating that right when there

exists a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

Case No. 2024-T-0015 {¶6} In the present case, Judge Rice has performed the action requested in the

Complaint by ruling on Tenney’s Motion for Final Appealable Order. “[P]rocedendo will

not issue to compel the performance of a duty that has already been performed.” State

ex rel. Clay v. Gee, 138 Ohio St.3d 151, 2014-Ohio-48, 4 N.E.3d 1026, ¶ 5. To the extent

that Tenney disagrees with that ruling, or this Court’s ruling in Tenney, 11th Dist. Trumbull

No. 2018-T-0019, the remedy of appeal is available. Hatheway at ¶ 7 (“[t]o the extent

Roberts attempts to use his petition [for procedendo] to argue the merits of his underlying

jurisdictional motion, he has an adequate remedy by way of appeal to address any alleged

error in the trial court’s ruling on that motion”); Daniels at ¶ 12 (“because Daniels could

have appealed the denial of his motion, he cannot satisfy the elements necessary for

relief in * * * procedendo”).

{¶7} Accordingly, Judge Rice’s Motion to Dismiss is granted and the Complaint

for Writ of Procedendo is, hereby, dismissed. All other pending motions are overruled as

moot.

EUGENE A. LUCCI, P.J., MATT LYNCH, J., ROBERT J. PATTON, J., concur.

Case No. 2024-T-0015