2022 Ohio 3924
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Relator Darllel Orr was tried in a bench criminal trial in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-12-560637-A; the court recessed for deliberation on August 19, 2013.
- Orr alleges the trial judge (Peter J. Corrigan) sua sponte stayed deliberations, handled other matters, and failed to journalize any continuance or stay.
- The court announced verdicts on September 19, 2013, and Orr was later sentenced and appealed (convictions affirmed on direct appeal).
- Orr filed a petition for a writ of procedendo seeking journal entries (reasonableness, length of stay, and effect on appellate timing) related to the alleged unjournalized stay/deliberation delay.
- Respondent moved to dismiss, arguing the petition fails to state a procedendo claim, is largely unintelligible, and contains procedural defects under R.C. 2969.25.
- The court granted the motion to dismiss, finding procedendo unavailable, alternative remedies existed, and procedural deficiencies provided an additional basis for dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether procedendo may compel a judge to journalize a sua sponte stay/continuance after deliberation | Orr: Judge stayed deliberations without journal entry; court must be ordered to journalize and justify the stay | Judge: Procedendo cannot be used to require a particular journal entry; judgment in the criminal case was rendered | Dismissed — procedendo not available to force journalization; relator failed to show a right/duty |
| Whether an unjournalized stay deprived the court of jurisdiction or entitles relator to release for delay | Orr: Unjournalized stay deprived court and warrants de novo relief ("technicality release") | Judge: No jurisdictional deprivation; any error should have been raised on direct appeal | Held: No jurisdictional defect; direct appeal was the adequate remedy; writ cannot substitute for appeal |
| Whether statute or rules (R.C. 2945.02, Crim.R.50, Sup.R.40) required journalizing before judge handled other matters during deliberations | Orr: Statute/rules prohibit other judicial activity absent a journalized continuance | Judge: Statutes/rules do not impose such a prohibition; Sup.R.40 is a 90-day guideline and was met here | Held: Rules/statutes do not require journalizing to handle other matters; respondent decided the case within Sup.R.40 timeframe |
| Procedural sufficiency under R.C. 2969.25 and Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal standard | Orr: Paid filing fee and filed opposition | Judge: Complaint is largely unintelligible and relator’s affidavit of prior actions did not strictly comply with R.C. 2969.25(A) | Held: Complaint subject to dismissal; procedural defects provided an alternative basis to deny relief |
Key Cases Cited
- McDougald v. Kuhn, 162 Ohio St.3d 619 (2020) (sets out elements for a writ of procedendo)
- State ex rel. Culgan v. Collier, 135 Ohio St.3d 436 (2013) (procedendo standard and limits)
- State ex rel. Neff v. Corrigan, 75 Ohio St.3d 12 (1996) (standard for Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal)
- State ex rel. Daniels v. Russo, 156 Ohio St.3d 143 (2018) (writ cannot substitute for direct appeal)
- State ex rel. Richfield v. Laria, 138 Ohio St.3d 168 (2014) (writ limitations when remedy existed on appeal)
- Davey v. Owen, 133 Ohio St. 96 (1937) (procedendo does not control the substance of the inferior court’s judgment)