6 Ohio St. 3d 5 | Ohio | 1983
It is well-established that the extraordinary writ of mandamus “* * * will not issue to compel a public official to perform a legal duty which has been completed.” State, ex rel. Breaux, v. Court of Common Pleas (1977), 50 Ohio St. 2d 164 [4 O.O.3d 352], citing State, ex rel. Bowman, v. Asmann (1925), 113 Ohio St. 394. Stated otherwise, the writ will not lie in order to secure a determination of issues which have become moot pending consideration by the court of appeals. State, ex rel. Hawke, v. Weygandt (1947), 148 Ohio St. 453, 456 [36 O.O. 88]. See, also, State, ex rel. Warner & Swasey Co., v. Indus. Comm. (1977), 50 Ohio St. 2d 152 [4 O.O.3d 346].
Since a ruling on the petition for post-conviction relief was issued during the pendency of appellant’s original action, the court of appeals correctly determined that the issues raised in the complaint for a writ of mandamus had become moot. State, ex rel. Breaux, v. Court of Common Pleas, supra.
Judgment affirmed.
