State ex rel. Roberts v. Marsh (Slip Opinion), 142 Ohio St. 3d 481

Mallon Roberts was convicted of murder after a jury trial; his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
On November 7, 2013, Roberts filed a motion for a new trial reiterating an argument previously raised on appeal challenging the admission of certain evidence.
The trial-court judge, Melba Marsh, overruled Roberts’ motion shortly after it was filed.
Roberts then petitioned the First District Court of Appeals for a writ of procedendo ordering Judge Marsh to rule on the motion for a new trial.
Judge Marsh moved to dismiss the procedendo petition, asserting she had already ruled on the motion; the court of appeals granted the dismissal.
Roberts appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, which affirmed the court of appeals’ dismissal.

Issue	Roberts' Argument	Marsh's Argument	Held
Whether a writ of procedendo is available to compel the judge to rule on the motion for a new trial	Roberts argued the writ was necessary because the judge had not properly ruled	Marsh argued she had ruled and thus there was nothing to compel	Court held procedendo was not available because the judge had in fact ruled
Whether the ruling denying the motion was improper for lacking findings of fact and conclusions of law required for postconviction relief	Roberts argued the ruling was not valid because it lacked required findings and conclusions under R.C. 2953.21	Marsh argued the ruling disposed of the motion and that defects in form did not make procedendo appropriate	Court held Roberts had alternative remedies (appeal or motion for findings), so procedendo was not appropriate
Whether Roberts lacked an adequate remedy at law (a prerequisite for procedendo)	Roberts contended no adequate remedy existed because the judge’s ruling was deficient	Marsh contended Roberts could have appealed or moved for findings and conclusions	Court held Roberts had adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law, so the writ was not warranted

State ex rel. Sherrills v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 72 Ohio St.3d 461 (1995) (elements for a writ of procedendo and requirement of lack of adequate remedy)
State ex rel. Crandall, Pheils & Wisniewski v. DeCessna, 73 Ohio St.3d 180 (1995) (procedendo is proper when a court refuses to enter judgment or unreasonably delays)