State ex rel. Poulton v. Cottrill (Slip Opinion), 147 Ohio St. 3d 402

Adam C. Poulton filed a petition for a writ of procedendo asking Judge Kelly J. Cottrill to rule on his motion to vacate or set aside his conviction.
The trial judge had already issued an entry ruling on Poulton’s motion; Poulton contended the entry lacked findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Poulton initially did not provide a copy of the judge’s entry to the court of appeals; after filing a memorandum the court of appeals asked for the entry, which Poulton later submitted and the court of appeals denied his subsequent motion.
The Fifth District dismissed Poulton’s procedendo petition as moot because the judge had ruled on the motion.
Poulton appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, which affirmed the court of appeals, denied his motion for default judgment, and denied oral argument.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Whether a writ of procedendo should compel the trial judge to rule on Poulton's motion	Poulton argued the judge had not issued adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law and thus had not fully complied	Judge Cottrill (and appellee) argued she had ruled on the motion and therefore there was no refusal to proceed	Denied — procedendo inappropriate because the judge had already ruled; dissatisfaction with the content of the entry does not justify procedendo
2. Whether procedendo is available where relief by appeal exists	Poulton implied procedendo was necessary to obtain a proper ruling	Appellee argued an appeal of the entry is an adequate remedy, making procedendo improper	Denied — appeal is an adequate remedy, precluding procedendo
3. Whether the petition was moot	Poulton contended the matter was not moot without findings and conclusions	Appellee and courts held the substantive ruling had been issued, rendering the procedendo petition moot	Petition dismissed as moot
4. Whether default judgment and oral argument were warranted	Poulton moved for default judgment claiming appellee failed to file a merit brief and requested oral argument	Court records showed appellee timely filed a merit brief; oral argument not warranted for a straightforward application	Motions denied — no default and oral argument denied

State ex rel. Sherrills v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 72 Ohio St.3d 461 (1995) (sets out elements required for procedendo)
State ex rel. Crandall, Pheils & Wisniewski v. DeCessna, 73 Ohio St.3d 180 (1995) (procedendo appropriate when court refuses to enter judgment or unreasonably delays)
State ex rel. Kreps v. Christiansen, 88 Ohio St.3d 313 (2000) (procedendo will not compel a duty already performed)
State ex rel. Roberts v. Marsh, 142 Ohio St.3d 481 (2014) (appeal is an adequate remedy that precludes procedendo)
State ex rel. Manley v. Walsh, 142 Ohio St.3d 384 (2014) (discusses when oral argument is warranted)
Appenzeller v. Miller, 136 Ohio St.3d 378 (2013) (factors supporting allowance of oral argument)