State ex rel. Chafin v. Brown, 2017 Ohio 198

Relator Russell Chafin pled guilty in 1993 to murder (with firearm specification), attempted burglary, and attempted abduction and received consecutive terms.
On February 2, 2016, Chafin filed a Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw his guilty plea in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
After no immediate ruling, Chafin filed an original action in this court (procedendo) on August 9, 2016 seeking a writ to compel Judge Kim Brown to rule.
Judge Brown filed an entry on August 15, 2016 denying Chafin’s February 2, 2016 motion; that entry was attached to the judge’s motion to dismiss the procedendo action.
The magistrate took judicial notice of the trial-court entry, concluded the writ was moot because the trial court had ruled, recommended dismissal and waiver of costs given the more-than-120-day delay.
The Tenth District adopted the magistrate’s decision, granted the motion to dismiss, and dismissed the procedendo action.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Chafin is entitled to a writ of procedendo compelling the trial court to rule on his motion to withdraw plea	Judge failed to timely rule on the Feb. 2, 2016 motion, so procedendo is required	Judge has since ruled (denied the motion), so there is no outstanding duty and procedendo is unnecessary	Dismissed as moot: no writ because the trial court has ruled
Whether procedural delay justifies relief or other remedy	Delay (over 120 days) in ruling warranted relief/compulsion	The court’s later ruling resolves the complaint; any remedy for delay (costs) is discretionary	Court found matter moot but noted the delay and recommended waiving costs; procedendo not issued

State ex rel. Miley v. Parrott, 77 Ohio St.3d 64 (1996) (elements for procedendo: clear right, clear duty, lack of adequate remedy)
State ex rel. Dehler v. Sutula, 74 Ohio St.3d 33 (1995) (procedendo remedies refusal or unreasonable delay)
State ex rel. Levin v. Sheffield Lake, 70 Ohio St.3d 104 (1994) (writ appropriate when inferior court refuses or fails to timely dispose)
State ex rel. Sherrills v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 72 Ohio St.3d 461 (1995) (procedendo directs inferior court to proceed to judgment but does not control content of judgment)
State ex rel. Hanson v. Guernsey Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 65 Ohio St.3d 545 (1992) (12(B)(6) motion tests complaint sufficiency; facts construed in relator’s favor)
O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, 42 Ohio St.2d 242 (1975) (standard that complaint should be dismissed only if no set of facts could entitle relief)
State ex rel. Boggs v. Springfield Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 72 Ohio St.3d 94 (1995) (procedendo complaint must allege legal duty and inadequate remedy with particularity)
State ex rel. Everhart v. McIntosh, 115 Ohio St.3d 195 (2007) (a court may take judicial notice of appropriate matters, including prior proceedings, on a 12(B)(6) motion)