State ex rel. White v. Aveni, 2023 Ohio 1549

Relator Marcus D. White filed a postconviction petition on December 23, 2020, in Franklin C.P. No. 03CR-7014 and later filed a February 24, 2021 notice/motion seeking sentencing on a "hanging charge" (felonious assault).
White filed this original action in the Tenth District (May 19, 2021) seeking a writ of mandamus or procedendo to compel Judge Carl A. Aveni II to rule on the December 23, 2020 petition and the February 24, 2021 motion.
The trial judge granted the State a 30-day extension to respond (May 25, 2021). The State subsequently moved to dismiss, and the trial court granted that motion on July 14, 2021, dismissing the postconviction petition.
The trial court’s online docket showed the July 14 dismissal also “tied off” and released the February 24 motion from the docket.
The magistrate recommended dismissal of White’s original action as moot because neither filing remained pending; White objected asserting the July 14 entry did not rule on the February 24 motion.
The court overruled White’s objection, adopted the magistrate’s decision, granted the judge’s motion to dismiss, and dismissed the complaint as moot; one judge concurred in judgment but declined to rely on the docket implication regarding the February 24 motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mandamus or procedendo should compel the trial judge to rule on White’s postconviction petition and Feb. 24 motion	White: Judge refused or unduly delayed ruling and must be ordered to act	Judge: Granted extension to State and later ruled; no refusal or undue delay remained	Dismissed as moot; no relief because judge acted and motions are not pending
Whether the July 14, 2021 entry disposed of the Feb. 24, 2021 motion	White: July 14 order did not rule on the Feb. 24 motion	Judge: July 14 dismissal “tied off” and cleared the Feb. 24 motion from docket; sentencing entry disposes of related charge	Court accepted that neither filing is pending; one concurrence would not rely on docket implication but agreed dismissal was proper on other grounds
Whether the court may take judicial notice of online docket/pleadings on a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion	White: (implicit) docket should not be the basis to find relief unnecessary	Judge: Court may judicially notice public records and online docket entries for a 12(B)(6) determination	Court relied on judicial-notice authorities to consider the trial court’s online docket and related filings
Whether mandamus/procedendo may issue when the duty sought to be compelled has been performed	White: Relief still necessary because action remains outstanding	Judge: Duty has been performed; relief is barred as moot	Affirmed that neither writ will compel a duty already performed; petition is moot

State ex rel. Miley v. Parrott, 77 Ohio St.3d 64 (1996) (elements for procedendo)
State ex rel. Dehler v. Sutula, 74 Ohio St.3d 33 (1995) (procedendo remedies for refusal or undue delay)
State ex rel. Levin v. Sheffield Lake, 70 Ohio St.3d 104 (1994) (purpose of procedendo to compel disposition)
State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm., 11 Ohio St.2d 141 (1967) (mandamus elements)
State ex rel. Reynolds v. Basinger, 99 Ohio St.3d 303 (2003) (mandamus may lie for undue delay)
State ex rel. Kreps v. Christiansen, 88 Ohio St.3d 313 (2000) (cannot compel performance of a duty already performed)
State ex rel. Grove v. Nadel, 84 Ohio St.3d 252 (1998) (same principle on mootness)
State ex rel. Findlay Publishing Co. v. Schroeder, 76 Ohio St.3d 580 (1996) (judicial notice of related court records on a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion)
State ex rel. Womack v. Marsh, 128 Ohio St.3d 303 (2011) (judicial notice of pleadings and orders in related cases)