State ex rel. Schreckengost v. Haas , 2015 Ohio 3998 ( 2015 )

[Cite as State ex rel. Schreckengost v. Haas, 2015-Ohio-3998.]
COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JUDGES:
STATE OF OHIO, EX REL., : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
RICHARD RAY SCHRECKENGOST : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
: Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
Relator :
:
-vs- : Case No. 2015CA00033
:
JUDGE JOHN G. HAAS :
: OPINION
Respondent
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Mandamus
JUDGMENT: Dismissed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: September 28, 2015
APPEARANCES:
For Relator For Respondent
RICHARD SCHRECKENGOST #137-291 RONALD MARK CALDWELL
2500 South Avon-Belden Road Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
Grafton, OH 44044 110 Central Plaza South, Ste. 510
Canton, OH 44702
Stark County, Case No. 2015CA00033 2
Gwin, P.J.
{¶1} Relator, Richard Ray Schreckengost, has filed a Petition for Writ of
Mandamus against Respondent, Judge John G. Haas of the Stark County Court of
Common Pleas. Relator seeks an order requiring Respondent to rule on a motion filed
in the trial court titled “Motion to Correct Void Sentence/Clerical Mistake in Judgment of
Sentence Pursuant to Criminal Rule 36” which was filed on December 11, 2014.
Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss arguing the instant complaint has become
moot.
{¶2} For a writ of mandamus to issue, the Relator must have a clear legal right
to the relief prayed for, the Respondent must be under a clear legal duty to perform the
requested act, and Relator must have no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law. State, ex rel. Berger, v. McMonagle (1983), 6 Ohio St. 3d 28, 6 OBR 50,
451 N.E.2d 225.
{¶3} However, the Supreme Court has held mandamus will not issue where the
requested relief has been obtained, “Neither procedendo nor mandamus will compel the
performance of a duty that has already been performed.” State ex rel. Kreps v.
Christiansen (2000), 88 Ohio St. 3d 313, 318, 725 N.E.2d 663, 668.
Stark County, Case No. 2015CA00033 3
{¶4} It appears Respondent has now ruled on the December 11, 2014 motion
by way of its entry dated March 16, 2015. Because Respondent has ruled on the
motion in question, the instant petition has become moot. For this reason, the motion to
dismiss is granted, and the instant petition is dismissed.
By Gwin, P.J.,
Delaney, J., and
Baldwin, J., concur