The opinion
[Cite as State ex rel. Brown v. Henson, 2014-Ohio-194.]
COURT OF APPEALS
RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO, EX. REL., JUDGES:
STEPHAN D. L. BROWN Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
Petitioner Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
-vs- Case No. 13CA82
HONORABLE JUDGE JAMES
HENSON OPINION
Respondent
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Procedendo
JUDGMENT: Dismissed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: January 21, 2014
APPEARANCES:
For Respondent For Petitioner
JAMES J. MAYER, JR. STEPHAN D. BROWN, PRO SE
Prosecuting Attorney #544-406
Richland County, Ohio P.O. Box 57
Marion Correctional Institution
By: JOHN C. NIEFT Marion, Ohio 43302
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
38 S. Park St.
Mansfield, Ohio 44902
[Cite as State ex rel. Brown v. Henson, 2014-Ohio-194.]
Hoffman, J.
{¶1} Petitioner, Stephan Brown, has filed a “Petition for Writ of Procedendo”
asking this Court to order Respondent, Judge James Henson, to rule on a motion for jail
time credit filed in the trial court in December 2012. Respondent has filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint as moot. Petitioner has not filed a response to the motion to
dismiss.
{¶2} The Supreme Court has explained, “For a writ of procedendo, [a
petitioner] must show a clear legal right to require the court to proceed, a clear legal
duty on the part of the court to proceed, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Sherrills v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common
Pleas, 72 Ohio St.3d 461, 462, 650 N.E.2d 899 (1995). A writ of procedendo is proper
when a court has refused to enter judgment or has unnecessarily delayed proceeding to
judgment. State ex rel. Crandall, Pheils & Wisniewski v. DeCessna, 73 Ohio St.3d 180,
184, 652 N.E.2d 742 (1995).” State ex rel. Culgan v. Collier (2013), 135 Ohio St.3d
436, 437, 988 N.E.
{¶3} Additionally, the Supreme Court has held that a judge’s performance of
the requested act makes the complaint in procedendo moot. State ex rel. Hazel v.
Bender, 129 Ohio St.3d 496, 496, 954 N.E.2d 114, 115 (Ohio,2011).
3
{¶4} Subsequent to the filing of the instant complaint, Respondent ruled on the
motion for jail time credit. For this reason, we grant the motion to dismiss the instant
petition as moot.
By: Hoffman, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Baldwin, J. concur