State ex rel. Davis v. Sutula, 2017 Ohio 7486

Relator Dwayne Davis, pro se, was convicted in 2013 of two counts of burglary and one count of intimidation and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment.
Davis obtained a delayed appeal; this court affirmed his convictions in 2015 and remanded for a nunc pro tunc sentencing entry.
On January 10, 2017 (more than 365 days after the trial transcript was filed in his direct appeal), Davis filed a petition for postconviction relief claiming he was "unavoidably prevented" from discovering facts supporting his claim.
Davis filed this mandamus/procedendo action on June 5, 2017, asking the trial judge to rule and to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law on the postconviction petition.
The trial court denied the postconviction petition as untimely on June 28, 2017; Davis subsequently appealed that denial. The court of appeals found his writs request moot and denied relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mandamus/procedendo may compel the trial judge to render a ruling on the postconviction petition	Davis sought an order compelling a ruling because the petition allegedly had not been decided	Judge Sutula produced a certified journal entry showing the petition was ruled upon (mootness)	Moot — no writ when duty already performed; writ denied
Whether the trial judge must issue findings of fact and conclusions of law when dismissing an untimely postconviction petition, including where petitioner claims he was "unavoidably prevented" from discovering facts	Davis argued the judge must issue findings because he was "unavoidably prevented" under R.C. 2953.23	Judge Sutula argued no duty to issue findings because the petition was untimely under R.C. 2953.21	Judge has no duty to issue findings when dismissing untimely petition, even with an "unavoidably prevented" claim; writ denied
Whether Davis lacks an adequate remedy at law (i.e., whether mandamus/procedendo is appropriate rather than appeal)	Davis sought extraordinary relief instead of appeal	Respondent noted appeal is an adequate remedy; Davis appealed the denial	Appeal is an adequate remedy; extraordinary writs unavailable

State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55 (Ohio 2012) (elements for mandamus/procedendo and standards for extraordinary writs)
State ex rel. Howard v. Doneghy, 102 Ohio St.3d 355 (Ohio 2004) (extraordinary writs moot where duty already performed)
State ex rel. Kimbrough v. Greene, 98 Ohio St.3d 116 (Ohio 2002) (trial courts need not issue findings when dismissing untimely postconviction petitions)
State ex rel. Hach v. Summit Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 102 Ohio St.3d 75 (Ohio 2004) (rule applies even when petitioner claims he was unavoidably prevented from discovering facts)
State ex rel. Dillon v. Cottrill, 145 Ohio St.3d 264 (Ohio 2016) (appeal is an adequate remedy precluding writs of procedendo and mandamus)
State ex rel. Smith v. McGee, 144 Ohio St.3d 50 (Ohio 2015) (appeal is adequate remedy; bars extraordinary writ)
State ex rel. Ward v. Reed, 141 Ohio St.3d 50 (Ohio 2014) (appeal ordinarily precludes mandamus/procedendo)