State ex rel. Hull v. Culotta

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as State ex rel. Hull v. Culotta, 2019-Ohio-5054.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO ex rel. FLOYD J. HULL, Relator, : PER CURIAM OPINION : CASE NO. 2019-L-086 - vs - : VINCENT A. CULOTTA, JUDGE, Respondent. : : Original Action for Writ of Procedendo Judgment: Petition dismissed. G. Michael Goins, 13609 Shaker Boulevard, Suite 3-A, Cleveland, Ohio 44120 (For Relator). Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecutor, and Michael L. DeLeone, Assistant Prosecutor, Lake County Administration Building, 105 Main Street, P.O. Box 490, Painesville, Ohio 44077 (For Respondent). PER CURIAM. {¶1} Relator, Floyd J. Hull, seeks a writ of procedendo to compel Judge Vincent A. Culotta to rule following an appeal in which this court reversed and remanded for further proceedings on Hull’s post-conviction petition. State v. Hull, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2018-L-050, 2019-Ohio-23, ¶ 38. Judge Culotta moves to dismiss arguing that Hull's petition is moot since he has ruled. {¶2} “‘A writ of procedendo is appropriate when a court has either refused to render a judgment or has unnecessarily delayed proceeding to judgment.’” State ex rel. R.W. Sidley, Inc. v. Crawford, 100 Ohio St.3d 113, 2003-Ohio-5101, 796 N.E.2d 929, ¶ 16, quoting State ex rel. Weiss v. Hoover, 84 Ohio St.3d 530, 532, 705 N.E.2d 1227 (1999). “Procedendo is an order from a court of superior jurisdiction to proceed to judgment * * *.” State ex rel. Miley v. Parrott, 77 Ohio St.3d 64, 67, 671 N.E.2d 24 (1996). A procedendo does not direct a court how to decide a matter, but only directs it to proceed. Id. {¶3} However, the trial court has now denied Hull’s petition finding no substantive grounds for relief and that a hearing was not warranted. State ex rel. Findlay Publishing Co. v. Schroeder, 76 Ohio St.3d 580, 581, 669 N.E.2d 835 (1996) (courts may take judicial notice of appropriate matters in determining a motion to dismiss without converting it to a motion for summary judgment). {¶4} Thus, Hull’s petition is moot due to the trial court's ruling. Davis v. Smalheer, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2010-G-2982, 2010-Ohio-6061, ¶ 5, citing Perry v. McKay, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2009-T-0023, 2009-Ohio-5767, ¶ 16 (finding merits of procedendo claim moot once judicial officer completes the act that relator seeks to compel). {¶5} Hull's petition for writ of procedendo is dismissed. THOMAS R. WRIGHT, P.J., MATT LYNCH, J., MARY JANE TRAPP, J., concur. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.