Stevens v. Fleegle, 2017 Ohio 794

Petitioner Trey A. Stevens filed a complaint for a writ of procedendo asking the trial judge to rule on his July 13, 2015 motion to vacate post-release control.
The motion has remained undecided since July 13, 2015, well beyond the 120-day guideline in Sup.R. 40(A)(3).
Respondent Judge Mark C. Fleegle moved to dismiss, arguing he was awaiting guidance from a similar pending Ohio Supreme Court case (State v. Grimes) and believed that caused a de facto stay; he offered no legal authority for that position.
The appellate court reviewed the standards for procedendo: petitioner must show a clear right to have the court proceed, a clear duty on the court, and lack of an adequate remedy at law.
The court noted Rule Sup.R. 40(A)(3) requires rulings within 120 days and that procedendo or mandamus may be used where a court has refused or unduly delayed rendering judgment.
The appellate court concluded the trial court’s delay was undue and that petitioner could be prejudiced by continued delay; it granted the writ and ordered the trial court to immediately rule on the July 13, 2015 motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court’s failure to rule on the motion since July 13, 2015 warrants a writ of procedendo	Stevens argued the court had a clear duty to rule and the delay violated Sup.R. 40(A)(3), entitling him to procedendo	Fleegle argued he could delay ruling while awaiting the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in a similar case (Grimes) and that disagreement on this Court would justify waiting	Court held the delay was undue; granted writ of procedendo and ordered the trial court to forthwith rule on the July 13, 2015 motion

State ex rel. Sherrills v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 72 Ohio St.3d 461 (1995) (establishes procedendo standards requiring clear right and duty and lack of adequate remedy)
State ex rel. Crandall, Pheils & Wisniewski v. DeCessna, 73 Ohio St.3d 180 (1995) (procedendo is proper for refusal or undue delay in entering judgment)
State ex rel. Brown v. Luebbers, 137 Ohio St.3d 542 (2013) (discusses interplay of Sup.R. 40 and writ remedies for undue delay)
State ex rel. Culgan v. Collier, 135 Ohio St.3d 436 (2013) (Sup.R. 40(A)(3) imposes duty to rule within 120 days)
State ex rel. Reynolds v. Basinger, 99 Ohio St.3d 303 (2003) (procedendo and mandamus lie for refusal or undue delay)
State ex rel. Weiss v. Hoover, 84 Ohio St.3d 530 (1999) (recognizes writ remedies when trial court unduly delays or refuses to render judgment)