State ex rel. Keith v. Gaul (Slip Opinion), 147 Ohio St. 3d 270

Jeffrey Keith was convicted of arson and grand theft in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-316724 in 1995 and sentenced to 15–25 years; his convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
In January 2002 Keith filed a motion for leave to file a delayed motion for a new trial, alleging judicial corruption and judge-shopping; the state moved to dismiss.
An erroneous 1996 entry had indicated Judge Cirigliano was assigned; that was corrected and appellate courts later held Cirigliano lacked authority to rule on the 2002 motion.
Judge Joseph Russo was properly assigned to the case in 2006; Keith filed further motions for a new trial that were denied, and multiple appeals were dismissed as barred by res judicata.
In April 2015 Keith petitioned the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus to compel former trial judge Daniel Gaul to rule on the 2002 motion; the Eighth District denied relief, holding any ruling would be vain because the law-of-the-case and prior decisions preclude relitigation.
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning mandamus will not compel a vain act where courts are bound by prior appellate rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mandamus will compel judge to rule on Keith's 2002 motion for leave to file a delayed new-trial motion	Keith: judge must rule on his 2002 motion regardless of prior rulings	Judge/State: prior appellate rulings and res judicata/law-of-the-case bar relitigation, so a ruling would be futile	Denied—mandamus will not compel a vain act because law-of-the-case/res judicata control
Whether prior appeals exhausted Keith's rights and bar subsequent claims	Keith: continued motions raise distinct issues warranting consideration	State: Keith exhausted direct appeals; issues were or could have been raised and are barred by res judicata	Held for State—claims barred by res judicata
Whether Judge Russo had a duty to decide the 2002 motion despite prior appellate determinations	Keith: court must issue a ruling on pending motion	Judge/State: Russo is bound by appellate mandates and cannot alter prior determinations	Held: No enforceable duty to perform an act that would be futile
Whether mandamus standard satisfied (clear right, clear duty, no adequate remedy)	Keith: meets requirements for extraordinary relief	Judge/State: fails because relief would be ineffectual and ordinary remedies exist given finality doctrines	Held for Judge/State—Keith failed to establish entitlement to mandamus

State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55 (establishing mandamus standards for extraordinary relief)
Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 1 (explaining law-of-the-case doctrine)
State ex rel. Bona v. Orange, 85 Ohio St.3d 18 (mandamus will not compel a vain act)
State ex rel. Thomas v. Ghee, 81 Ohio St.3d 191 (same principle on vain acts in mandamus)
State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448 (res judicata limits relitigation of claims that could have been raised on appeal)
State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (foundational Ohio res judicata doctrine)
State ex rel. Cleveland v. Astrab, 139 Ohio St.3d 445 (application of law-of-the-case in subsequent proceedings)