State ex rel. Hull v. Culotta , 2019 Ohio 5054 ( 2019 )

[Cite as State ex rel. Hull v. Culotta, 2019-Ohio-5054.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LAKE COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO ex rel. FLOYD J. HULL, : PER CURIAM OPINION
Relator, :
CASE NO. 2019-L-086
- vs - :
VINCENT A. CULOTTA, JUDGE, :
Respondent. :
Original Action for Writ of Procedendo
Judgment: Petition dismissed.
G. Michael Goins, 13609 Shaker Boulevard, Suite 3-A, Cleveland, Ohio 44120 (For
Relator).
Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecutor, and Michael L. DeLeone, Assistant
Prosecutor, Lake County Administration Building, 105 Main Street, P.O. Box 490,
Painesville, Ohio 44077 (For Respondent).
PER CURIAM.
{¶1} Relator, Floyd J. Hull, seeks a writ of procedendo to compel Judge
Vincent A. Culotta to rule following an appeal in which this court reversed and
remanded for further proceedings on Hull’s post-conviction petition. State v. Hull, 11th
Dist. Lake No. 2018-L-050, 2019-Ohio-23, ¶ 38. Judge Culotta moves to dismiss
arguing that Hull's petition is moot since he has ruled.
{¶2} “‘A writ of procedendo is appropriate when a court has either refused to
render a judgment or has unnecessarily delayed proceeding to judgment.’” State ex rel.
R.W. Sidley, Inc. v. Crawford, 100 Ohio St.3d 113, 2003-Ohio-5101, 796 N.E.2d 929, ¶
16, quoting State ex rel. Weiss v. Hoover, 84 Ohio St.3d 530, 532, 705 N.E.2d 1227(1999). “Procedendo is an order from a court of superior jurisdiction to proceed to
judgment * * *.” State ex rel. Miley v. Parrott, 77 Ohio St.3d 64, 67, 671 N.E.2d 24(1996). A procedendo does not direct a court how to decide a matter, but only directs it
to proceed. Id.{¶3} However, the trial court has now denied Hull’s petition finding no
substantive grounds for relief and that a hearing was not warranted. State ex rel.
Findlay Publishing Co. v. Schroeder, 76 Ohio St.3d 580, 581, 669 N.E.2d 835 (1996)
(courts may take judicial notice of appropriate matters in determining a motion to
dismiss without converting it to a motion for summary judgment).
{¶4} Thus, Hull’s petition is moot due to the trial court's ruling. Davis v.
Smalheer, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2010-G-2982, 2010-Ohio-6061, ¶ 5, citing Perry v.
McKay, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2009-T-0023, 2009-Ohio-5767, ¶ 16 (finding merits of
procedendo claim moot once judicial officer completes the act that relator seeks to
compel).
{¶5} Hull's petition for writ of procedendo is dismissed.
THOMAS R. WRIGHT, P.J., MATT LYNCH, J., MARY JANE TRAPP, J., concur.
2