State ex rel. Mobley v. O'Donnell, 2021 Ohio 715

Relator Alphonso Mobley pleaded guilty in Franklin County (sentenced May 1, 2017 to 14 years) and did not file a direct appeal.
On Feb. 21, 2018 Mobley filed a pro se petition to vacate/set aside his conviction (construed as a post-conviction petition), then filed multiple amendments and a motion for summary judgment.
The trial court denied the petition and the summary-judgment motion on June 20, 2018, concluding Mobley was not entitled to relief and that many claims were barred by res judicata.
Mobley filed another motion to amend on June 26, 2018, and later brought this original action (April 1, 2020) seeking writs of procedendo (to force a final judgment) and mandamus (to compel findings of fact and conclusions of law).
Judge O’Donnell moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) as moot; the magistrate recommended dismissal, Mobley objected (arguing the trial court didn’t adjudicate his amended claims and omitted Civ.R. 54(B) language), and the court reviewed the matter.
The appellate court adopted the magistrate’s decision, overruled Mobley’s objections, and granted the motion to dismiss—finding the trial court had issued a final, appealable order and that mandamus/procedendo would be inappropriate or unnecessary (and findings can be raised on appeal).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether procedendo is proper to compel a final judgment on post-conviction petition	Mobley: trial court did not adjudicate claims raised in subsequent amendments; absence of Civ.R. 54(B) language means claims remain pending	O'Donnell: trial court already entered a final, appealable order denying relief; procedendo cannot compel a duty already performed	Denied—trial court issued a final appealable order; procedendo would be futile
Whether mandamus can compel findings of fact and conclusions of law on denial of post-conviction relief	Mobley: court must issue Civ.R. 52 findings and conclusions; mandamus necessary	O'Donnell: findings are not required here; any omission is an appeal issue and mandamus is not appropriate	Denied—failure to issue findings is correctable on appeal; relator had an adequate remedy at law

State ex rel. Culgan v. Collier, 135 Ohio St.3d 436 (2013) (elements required for mandamus/procedendo)
Gen. Acc. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 44 Ohio St.3d 17 (1989) (finality and when Civ.R. 54(B) language is unnecessary)
State ex rel. Kreps v. Christiansen, 88 Ohio St.3d 313 (2000) (mandamus/procedendo will not compel a duty already performed)
State ex rel. Grove v. Nadel, 84 Ohio St.3d 252 (1998) (same principle: cannot compel performed duty)
State ex rel. R.W. Sidley, Inc. v. Crawford, 100 Ohio St.3d 113 (2003) (procedendo appropriate when court refuses or delays judgment)
State ex rel. Weiss v. Hoover, 84 Ohio St.3d 530 (1999) (procedendo standard summarized)
State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm., 11 Ohio St.2d 141 (1967) (mandamus elements)