Shoop v. State, 144 Ohio St. 3d 374

Frank Ray Shoop was convicted of felonious sexual penetration in 1992; conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal.
Shoop filed multiple postconviction motions that were denied.
In July 2013 Shoop filed a trial-court "motion to vacate a void judgment."
In May 2014 he sought writs of procedendo (to force the trial court to act) and mandamus (to correct alleged trial errors) in the Third District Court of Appeals.
The court of appeals dismissed the mandamus claim as improper because the alleged trial errors should have been raised on direct appeal and dismissed the procedendo claim because the trial court had already ruled on the motion.
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed: procedendo was unavailable because the trial court had ruled; mandamus was unavailable because an adequate remedy (appeal) existed and Shoop failed to bring the mandamus action in the name of the state.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Writ of procedendo: whether Shoop is entitled to an order forcing the trial court to rule	Trial court failed to rule on his July 2013 motion to vacate a void judgment; procedendo required to compel action	Trial court did rule on the motion (Aug. 13, 2013), so no duty to compel	Denied — procedendo unavailable because court had ruled
Writ of mandamus: whether Shoop can use mandamus to obtain relief for alleged constitutional/evidentiary errors at trial	Mandamus should compel correction of alleged trial errors	Those issues were cognizable on direct appeal; appeal is an adequate remedy, so mandamus is improper	Denied — mandamus precluded because adequate remedy by appeal exists
Technical/dismissal ground for mandamus: required form of mandamus petitions	(Implicit) Relief requested notwithstanding procedural form	R.C. 2731.04 requires mandamus be brought "in the name of the state on the relation of the person applying"; failure to so plead is ground for dismissal	Denied — petition dismissed for not bringing action in the name of the state

State v. Shoop, 87 Ohio App.3d 462 (affirming conviction) (background appellate decision)
State ex rel. Sherrills v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 72 Ohio St.3d 461 (procedendo requires clear right, duty, and lack of adequate remedy)
State ex rel. Crandall, Pheils & Wisniewski v. DeCessna, 73 Ohio St.3d 180 (procedendo proper when court refuses to enter judgment or unnecessarily delays)
State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55 (standard for mandamus: clear right, duty, and lack of adequate remedy)
State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm., 11 Ohio St.2d 141 (an appeal is generally an adequate remedy that precludes mandamus)
State ex rel. Natl. Emps. Network Alliance, Inc. v. Ryan, 125 Ohio St.3d 11 (mandamus cannot issue when adequate remedy at law exists)
Blankenship v. Blackwell, 103 Ohio St.3d 567 (mandamus may be dismissed if not brought in the name of the state)
Maloney v. Sacks, 173 Ohio St. 237 (same principle regarding pleading mandamus in the name of the state)