The opinion
Per Curiam.
In order for either mandamus or procedendo to issue, appellant must establish a clear legal right to the relief requested. State, ex rel. Natl. Broadcasting Co., v. Cleveland (1988), 38 Ohio St. 3d 79, 80 , 526 N.E. 2d 786, 787 (mandamus); State, ex rel. Berger, v. McMonagle (1983), 6 Ohio St. 3d 28, 29 , 6 OBR 50, 50-51, 451 N.E. 2d 225, 226 (mandamus); State, ex rel. Smith, v. Friedman (1970), 22 Ohio St. 2d 25 , 51 O.O. 2d 41, 257 N.E. 2d 386 , paragraph two of the syllabus (procedendo); State, ex rel. Ratliff, v. Marshall (1972), 30 Ohio St. 2d 101, 102 , 59 O.O. 2d 114, 115, 282 N.E. 2d 582, 584 (procedendo).
This court has held that where a verbatim transcript of proceedings exists and there is no allegation that one cannot be provided, there is no clear duty to sign a narrative statement supplied pursuant to App. R. 9(C). State, ex rel. Corona, v. Harris (1980), 63 Ohio St. 2d 95 , 17 O.O. 3d 58, 406 N.E. 2d 1120 . Indeed, the rule itself makes *147 this plain. It provides that such statements are proper only “[i]f no report of the evidence or proceedings at a hearing or trial was made, or if a transcript is unavailable * *
Accordingly, the court of appeals’ decision dismissing the petitions in mandamus and procedendo must be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, Douglas, Wright and H. Brown, JJ., concur.