2020 Ohio 1070
Ohio2020Background
- In 2001 Hibbler was convicted (consolidated cases) of murder with a firearm specification and related offenses; convictions and sentence were affirmed on appeal.
- In 2018 Hibbler filed motions under both criminal-case numbers to vacate postrelease-control and for a final, appealable order.
- In November 2018 the trial court issued an entry in one case (2001-CR-0081) denying the final-order motion and granting in part the postrelease-control motion; that entry did not explicitly reference the other case (2000-CR-0636).
- Hibbler filed a complaint for writs of mandamus and procedendo in the court of appeals (Jan. 28, 2019), claiming the trial judge had not ruled on motions in 2000-CR-0636 and asking the court to compel a ruling.
- The judge moved to dismiss, attaching a Feb. 20, 2019 nunc pro tunc sentencing entry captioned under both case numbers that disposed of the postrelease-control issue; Hibbler later obtained a successful appeal from that nunc pro tunc entry in the court of appeals.
- The Second District dismissed Hibbler’s petition as moot; the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed that dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hibbler is entitled to a writ of procedendo because the trial judge failed to rule on motions in case No. 2000-CR-0636 | Hibbler: judge has not ruled on the motions; procedendo should compel a ruling | Judge (O’Neill): a nunc pro tunc sentencing entry disposed of the motions in both consolidated cases; claims are moot | The court held the nunc pro tunc entry disposed of the motions in both cases; procedendo is moot because the duty has been performed |
| Whether a violation of Sup.R. 40(A)(3) (120-day rule) entitles Hibbler to relief | Hibbler: delay violated Sup.R. 40(A)(3) to his prejudice and supports extraordinary relief | Judge: Sup.R. 40(A)(3) does not create a directly enforceable right; rule only guides delay analysis; here motions were ruled on and appeal was available | The court held Sup.R. 40(A)(3) guides delay review but does not create an independent, enforceable right; because the motions were ruled on and an appeal remedy existed, extraordinary relief was inappropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Weiss v. Hoover, 84 Ohio St.3d 530 (1999) (sets elements for writ of procedendo)
- State ex rel. Culgan v. Collier, 135 Ohio St.3d 436 (2013) (Sup.R. 40(A)(3) guides consideration of undue delay but does not itself create an enforceable right)
- Martin v. Judges of the Lucas Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 50 Ohio St.3d 71 (1990) (extraordinary writs cannot compel performance of a duty already performed)