State ex rel. Culgan v. Collier
135 Ohio St. 3d 436
| Ohio | 2013Background
- Culgan, appealing pro se, sought to terminate postrelease control based on a 2009 sentencing entry error.
- Judge Collier did not rule on the motion within 120 days, triggering relief requests in mandamus/procedendo.
- Ninth District dismissed Culgan’s mandamus/procedendo petition; Culgan appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.
- Supreme Court reversed the Ninth District on the merits, focusing on whether mandamus/procedendo lie and the enforceability of Sup.R. 40.
- Sup.R. 40(A)(3) requires 120-day rulings, but it does not by itself create an enforceable right in mandamus for all motions.
- Court held procedendo is appropriate to compel a ruling when a trial court unduly delays, while mandamus to enforce Sup.R. 40 is not.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus lies to compel a ruling on a postrelease-motion | Culgan relies on Sup.R. 40 to demand a ruling within 120 days. | Sup.R. 40 does not create a mandamus right here. | Mandamus not available to enforce Sup.R. 40 in this context. |
| Whether procedendo lies to compel a ruling on a postrelease-motion | Unreasonable delay in ruling warrants procedendo. | Delay may be justified by proper judicial discretion and case factors. | Procedendo proper to compel ruling due to over-a-year delay and potential mootness savings. |
| Role of Sup.R. 40 in creating enforceable rights | Rule creates enforceable obligation to rule within 120 days. | Rule does not create a mandamus right absent other statutory provisions. | Sup.R. 40 does not by itself create an enforceable mandamus right. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Reynolds v. Basinger, 99 Ohio St.3d 303 (2003-Ohio-3631) (procedendo when court refuses or unduly delays judgment)
- State ex rel. Weiss v. Hoover, 84 Ohio St.3d 530 (1999-Ohio-1227) (standard for mandamus/ procedendo related to delay)
- Crandall, Pheils & Wisniewski v. DeCessna, 73 Ohio St.3d 180 (1995) (undue delay and writs when judgment delayed)
- State ex rel. Sherrills v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 72 Ohio St.3d 461 (1995) (mandamus standard and duty to proceed)
- State ex rel. Taxpayers for Westerville Schools v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections, 133 Ohio St.3d 153 (2012-Ohio-4267) (clear legal right/duty; adequate remedy at law)
- Martin v. Judges of the Lucas Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 50 Ohio St.3d 71 (1990) (recognizes limited expediency considerations in rulings)