State ex rel. Roberts v. Marsh (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 1540

In 2005 Roberts was convicted of murder with a repeat-violent-offender specification and sentenced to 15 years to life (murder) plus a consecutive 10-year specification term.
The trial-court sentencing entry stated Roberts would be subject to postrelease control if released.
In 2015 Roberts moved to correct his sentence; the First District held postrelease control was improperly imposed on an indefinite sentence and remanded to vacate that portion.
In March 2018 Judge Marsh vacated the postrelease-control sentence, but the First District later dismissed Roberts’s appeal for lack of a final, appealable order because the court had not set out all required Crim.R. 32(C) information in a single document.
In August 2019 Roberts filed for writs of procedendo and/or mandamus to compel issuance of a corrected, final sentencing entry; Judge Marsh then issued a nunc pro tunc corrected sentencing entry in September 2019.
The First District dismissed Roberts’s original-action petition as moot; the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed, holding mandamus/procedendo will not compel performance of a duty already performed and Roberts may challenge the nunc pro tunc entry by direct appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mandamus/procedendo can compel the judge to issue a corrected sentencing entry	Roberts asked the court to compel Judge Marsh to issue a corrected, final sentencing entry	Judge Marsh issued a nunc pro tunc corrected entry, rendering the petition moot	Petition dismissed as moot; writs will not compel a duty already performed
Whether remaining alleged errors in the nunc pro tunc entry require reversing the dismissal	Roberts contends the nunc pro tunc entry still contains several errors	Any substantive challenge belongs in an appeal from the nunc pro tunc entry itself; dismissal remains proper	Court affirmed dismissal; Roberts may appeal the substance of the nunc pro tunc entry

State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303 (Ohio 2011) (Crim.R. 32(C) requires a sentencing entry to set forth all required information in a single document for a final, appealable order)
State ex rel. Nelson v. Russo, 89 Ohio St.3d 227 (Ohio 2000) (extrinsic evidence may demonstrate mootness when requested relief has been performed)
State ex rel. Grove v. Nadel, 84 Ohio St.3d 252 (Ohio 1998) (mandamus and procedendo will not compel performance of a duty already performed)