State ex rel. Lacy v. DeWeese

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as State ex rel. Lacy v. DeWeese, 2015-Ohio-1754.] COURT OF APPEALS RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO, EX REL., GARY LACY Relator -vsJAMES D. DEWEESE, JUDGE Respondent : : : : : : : : : : JUDGES: Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, P.J. Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. Case No. 14CA76 OPINION CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Mandamus JUDGMENT: Dismissed DATE OF JUDGMENT: May 7, 2015 APPEARANCES: For Petitioner For Respondent GARY LACY, Pros Se Inmate No. 623415 501 Thompson Road P. O. Box 8000 Conneaut, OH 44030 JILL M. COCHRAN Assistant Richland Co. Prosecutor 38 South park Street 2nd Floor Mansfield, OH 44902 Richland County, Case No. 14CA76 2 Farmer, J. {¶1} Relator, Gary Lacy, has filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus requesting Respondent be ordered to rule on a motion filed in the trial court on April 11, 2014. The motion filed April 11, 2014 is a motion for post conviction relief. {¶2} Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the petition arguing the trial court has no clear legal duty to rule on the motion. {¶3} For a writ of mandamus to issue, the relator must have a clear legal right to the relief prayed for, the respondent must be under a clear legal duty to perform the requested act, and relator must have no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. State, ex rel. Berger, v. McMonagle (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 28, 6 OBR 50, 451 N.E.2d 225. {¶4} However, the Supreme Court has held procedendo and mandamus will not issue where the requested relief has been obtained, “Neither procedendo nor mandamus will compel the performance of a duty that has already been performed.” State ex rel. Kreps v. Christiansen (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 313, 318, 725 N.E.2d 663, 668. {¶5} It appears Respondent has now ruled on the April 11, 2014 motion by way of its entry dated December 29, 2014. Because Respondent has ruled on the motion in Richland County, Case No. 14CA76 3 question, the instant petition has become moot. For this reason, the motion to dismiss is granted, and the instant petition is dismissed. By Farmer, P.J. Delaney.J. and Baldwin, J. concur.

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.