Opinion
No. 10 CA 021.
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: February 15, 2011.
Petition for Writ of Procedendo.
Denied.
Joseph F. Salzgeber, for Relator.
Stephen D. Knowling, Prosecuting Attorney, Christine C. Williams, Assistant Prosecutor, for Respondent.
Before: Hon. John W. Wise, P. J., Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J., Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
OPINION
{¶ 1} Relator, Sandra Mooney, has filed a petition requesting this Court issue a writ of procedendo compelling Judge Jane Irving of the Holmes County Municipal Court to issue a sentencing entry in Case Number CRB 0800431.
{¶ 2} The instant complaint was filed on November 9, 2010. The trial court issued a ruling on the motion in the criminal cases on September 14, 2010, however, it does not appear Relator was aware of the fact the entry had been issued. Since the filing of this Complaint, Relator has become aware of the entry and was granted leave to pursue a delayed appeal in Holmes County Case Number 10CA22. Despite having been granted leave to pursue the appeal, Relator has not dismissed the instant case, therefore, we will address the merits of the petition.
{¶ 3} The Supreme Court has held, "Neither procedendo nor mandamus will compel the performance of a duty that has already been performed. State ex rel. Grove v. Nadel (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 252, 253, 703 N.E.2d 304, 305." State ex rel. Kreps v. Christiansen (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 313, 318, 725 N.E.2d 663, 668.
{¶ 4} Because the requested relief has already been obtained, we find the petition for writ of procedendo is moot and deny the Petition.
{¶ 5} PETITION DENIED.
{¶ 6} COSTS TO RELATOR.
{¶ 7} IT IS SO ORDERED.
By: Wise, P. J. Edwards, J., and Delaney, J., concur.
JUDGMENT ENTRY
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the petition for writ of procedendo is moot and the petition is denied.
Costs assessed to Relator.