State ex rel. Clay v. Gee

Appellant filed a motion for reclassification of his sex-offender status based on the Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Williams, which held that it was unconstitutional to apply sex-offender classifications under Ohio’s Adam Wash Act to defendants convicted prior to the effective date of that legislation. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for a writ of procedendo in the court of appeals to compel a ruling on his motion. The common pleas court subsequently issued a judgment granting Appellant’s motion and reclassifying Appellant’s sex-offender status. Thereafter, the court of appeals dismissed the petition for a writ of procedendo as moot. The Supreme Court affirmed because procedendo will not issue to compel the performance of a duty that has already been performed and because procedendo will not issue to address Appellant’s argument that the common pleas court judge failed to perform his duty.