State ex rel. Williams v. Croce (Slip Opinion), 106 N.E.3d 55

In 2008 Cameron Williams was convicted in Summit County of multiple offenses and sentenced to life with parole eligibility after 69 years; one conviction was later reversed by the Ninth District.
A visiting judge held a resentencing hearing in 2013 and issued a corrective sentencing entry on September 30, 2013; the Ninth District found the entry should have been labeled nunc pro tunc and remanded for correction.
Judge Christine Croce issued a nunc pro tunc sentencing entry dated April 24, 2014. Williams later moved (Dec. 1, 2016) asking Croce to issue a final, appealable order; she denied the motion on Feb. 8, 2017.
Williams filed a petition for a writ of procedendo (May 26, 2017), arguing neither the 2013 nor the 2014 entry constituted a final, appealable order under Crim.R. 32(C) and the ‘‘one document’’ rule from State v. Baker.
The Ninth District dismissed the procedendo petition, holding Croce had ruled (denied) the motion and procedendo cannot be used to review the correctness of a ruling or to compel a specific result.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether procedendo can compel judge to issue a revised final, appealable sentencing entry	Williams: Croce’s entries were not final/appealable under Crim.R. 32(C) and Baker; she must enter a corrected final order	Croce: She ruled on the motion (denied); procedendo is not appropriate to change or direct a particular outcome	Denied — procedendo unavailable because Croce had already ruled; procedendo cannot compel a specific result
Whether a writ is appropriate when a judge has denied a motion (vs. refusing/delaying to rule)	Williams: Sought court order to compel issuance of final order despite denial	Croce: Denial is a ruling; procedendo only compels action when court refuses or unreasonably delays	Denied — procedendo requires refusal or unreasonable delay to proceed to judgment
Whether the complaint was moot once judge ruled	Williams: Argued entries remained nonfinal so relief still required	Croce: The denial rendered the request for an order to issue moot because duty was performed	Held moot — writ will not compel performance of a duty already performed
Scope of procedendo: can it control substance of judgment?	Williams: Asked court to force a specific form/content for the final order	Croce: Procedendo cannot direct what judgment should be	Held — procedendo may compel a ruling but cannot control the inferior court’s chosen judgment or require a particular outcome

State v. Baker, 893 N.E.2d 163 (Ohio 2008) (only one document can constitute a final appealable order)
State ex rel. Weiss v. Hoover, 705 N.E.2d 1227 (Ohio 1999) (procedendo appropriate where court refuses or unreasonably delays ruling)
State ex rel. Yeaples v. Gall, 23 N.E.3d 1077 (Ohio 2014) (elements required to obtain writ of procedendo)
State ex rel. Davey v. Owen, 12 N.E.2d 144 (Ohio 1938) (procedendo orders inferior courts to proceed but does not dictate the content of the judgment)
State ex rel. Grove v. Nadel, 691 N.E.2d 275 (Ohio 1998) (procedendo cannot control what judgment should be)