State ex rel. Cockroft v. McIntosh, 2016 Ohio 4639

Relator Anthony Cockroft is an inmate convicted in 2003 of multiple offenses; his convictions and sentences were previously appealed and affirmed.
The Tenth District remanded for limited resentencing on post-release control (PRC) issues after State v. Foster and related authority.
The trial court held a PRC hearing on July 11, 2014, advised Cockroft of a five-year PRC, and filed a written notice signed by Cockroft and counsel.
On January 2, 2015, Cockroft filed a "Motion for a Final Appealable Order" claiming the resentencing journal entry lacked the "Fact Of Conviction."
The trial court memorialized the July 11, 2014 PRC hearing in a January 22, 2015 entry. Cockroft later filed and then struck a motion to compel ruling; he sued in this court for a writ of procedendo after asserting no ruling was made.
The magistrate found the trial court had performed the act Cockroft sought (advising and entering notice as to PRC) and recommended denial of procedendo as moot; the appellate court adopted the magistrate's decision and dismissed the action.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a writ of procedendo should compel the trial judge to rule on Cockroft's January 2, 2015 motion for a final appealable order	Cockroft: judge failed to issue a final appealable order and did not include the "Fact Of Conviction" in the sentencing/journal entry	Judge/Magistrate: court already held the PRC hearing and filed an entry memorializing the hearing; judge performed the act sought	Denied — procedendo dismissed as moot because the trial court performed the requested act
Whether Cockroft was entitled to further resentencing beyond PRC correction	Cockroft sought a final appealable order addressing alleged deficiencies in the resentencing entry	Court: prior appellate mandate limited resentencing to PRC; non-PRC defects do not entitle de novo resentencing	Not reached on merits here; prior appellate precedent limits resentencing to PRC and the trial court complied

State ex rel. Miley v. Parrott, 77 Ohio St.3d 64 (procedendo requires clear right, duty, and lack of adequate remedy)
State ex rel. Dehler v. Sutula, 74 Ohio St.3d 33 (procedendo remedies failure or delay to dispose of pending action)
State ex rel. Levin v. Sheffield Lake, 70 Ohio St.3d 104 (purpose of procedendo described)
State ex rel. Sherrills v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 72 Ohio St.3d 461 (procedendo does not control what judgment should be)
State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (Foster sentencing decisions prompting resentencing issues)
In re Criminal Sentencing Statutes Cases, 109 Ohio St.3d 313 (remands and sentencing-law guidance following Foster)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (sentences lacking PRC notification are partially void and allow limited resentencing for PRC)
State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (aggravated murder is an unclassified felony not subject to PRC)