Nor did Muhammad present any evidence in the court of appeals supporting this contention. See State ex rel. Wells v. Jefferson Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 122 Ohio St.3d 39, 2009-Ohio-2358, 907 N.E.2d 1166 (appellant seeking writs of mandamus and procedendo cannot add new matter to the record on appeal to support his claims). {¶ 4} Therefore, the court of appeals properly dismissed Muhammad's petition, and we affirm the court's dismissal.
Nor did Muhammad present any evidence in the court of appeals supporting this contention. See State ex rel. Wells v. Jefferson Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 122 Ohio St.3d 39, 2009-Ohio-2358, 907 N.E.2d 1166 (appellant seeking writs of mandamus and procedendo cannot add new matter to the record on appeal to support his claims). {¶ 4} Therefore, the court of appeals properly dismissed Muhammad's petition, and we affirm the court's dismissal.
{¶ 29} Moreover, insofar as Lucas County MRDD attempts to rely on new matter that is not contained in the record on appeal, we cannot consider it. See State ex rel. Wells v. Jefferson Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 122 Ohio St.3d 39, 2009-Ohio-2358, 907 N.E.2d 1166, ¶ 1. {¶ 30} Finally, Lucas County MRDD's reliance on State ex rel. Mallory v. Pub. Emps. Retirement Bd. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 235, 694 N.E.2d 1356, and Van Dyke, 99 Ohio St.3d 430, 2003-Ohio-4123, 793 N.E.2d 438, is misplaced.
Jefferson App. No. 08 JE 28, 2008-Ohio-6972. Reported at 122 Ohio St.3d 39, 2009-Ohio-2358, 907 N.E.2d 1166. RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS.
{¶ 1} On December 30, 2009, Pro-se Relator Brandon Moore filed a petition for writ of mandamus and/or procedendo with this Court, seeking a writ to compel Respondent Judge Scott R. Krichbaum to issue a final appealable judgment entry of sentence for State v. Moore, Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 02-CR-525 in compliance with Crim. R. 32(C) as set forth in State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197, 2008-Ohio-3330, 893 N.E.2d 163. Moore contends that he is entitled to a new sentencing hearing and a revised sentencing entry that specifies Moore's manner of conviction. Respondent Krichbaum has filed a combined answer and Civ. R. 12(C) motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that this Court may not retroactively apply Baker to Moore's original sentencing order, pursuant to our decision in State ex rel. Wells v. Jefferson Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 7th Dist. No. 08 JE 28, 2008-Ohio-6972, affirmed, 122 Ohio St.3d 39, 2009-Ohio-2358, 907 N.E.2d 1166. Moore argues in his response and supplemental memorandum that this Court is obligated to retroactively apply Baker to his original sentencing order pursuant to State ex rel Culgan v. Medina Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 119 Ohio St.3d 535, 2008-Ohio-4609, 895 N.E.2d 805.