Thompson v. Donnelly (Slip Opinion), 119 N.E.3d 1292

Lamar Thompson Jr. filed a complaint in the Eighth District seeking a writ of procedendo to compel Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Michael Donnelly to rule on Thompson’s postconviction petition, alleging it had been pending more than six months.
Judge Donnelly filed a motion for summary judgment and attached a judgment entry dated August 1, 2017, denying Thompson’s postconviction petition.
The court of appeals granted Donnelly’s motion, denied the writ, and found the action moot because the judge had already ruled.
The court of appeals also found procedural defects: Thompson failed to file the required affidavit of prior civil actions and inmate-account statement under R.C. 2969.25.
Thompson appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, which affirmed the court of appeals: the case was moot and Thompson had waived other argued claims; mandamus/procedendo was not available to raise sufficiency or plea-voluntariness claims when an adequate remedy by direct appeal exists.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether procedendo should compel Judge Donnelly to rule on the postconviction petition	Thompson sought an order compelling a ruling because the petition allegedly was pending >6 months	Donnelly showed a judgment entry already denying the petition before suit; procedendo cannot compel a duty already performed	Denied as moot—procedendo will not compel an action already taken
Whether Thompson complied with filing requirements under R.C. 2969.25	Thompson did not dispute noncompliance in merit brief; suggested he was unaware of the ruling	Court of appeals argued Thompson failed to file required affidavit and inmate-account statement	Complaint procedurally defective for failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25 filing requirements
Whether Thompson may raise sufficiency-of-evidence challenge via procedendo/mandamus	Thompson argued the evidence did not sustain his conviction (raised on appeal here)	Respondent and court: those issues were not raised in the procedendo complaint and are not proper in mandamus; direct appeal is the adequate remedy	Waived in this proceeding; mandamus not available when an adequate remedy by appeal exists
Whether plea-voluntariness may be remedied by mandamus here	Thompson argued his guilty plea was involuntary under Crim.R. 11	Court: voluntariness challenges are for direct appeal; not for extraordinary writ when an adequate remedy exists	Waived and unavailable via mandamus; remedy is direct appeal

State ex rel. Poulton v. Cottrill, 147 Ohio St.3d 402 (2016) (procedendo claim dismissed as moot where judge already issued the requested ruling)
Shoop v. State, 144 Ohio St.3d 374 (2015) (writ of procedendo not available when judge already denied the motion at issue)
State ex rel. Sevayega v. Gallagher, 151 Ohio St.3d 208 (2017) (failure to raise claims in the original complaint results in waiver)
State ex rel. Thomas v. Franklin Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 141 Ohio St.3d 547 (2015) (direct appeal is an adequate remedy to challenge sufficiency of the evidence)