State ex rel. Roberts v. Marsh

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the dismissal as moot of Mallon Roberts’s petition for writs of mandamus and procedendo. Because the trial judge had issued a corrected sentencing entry, neither writ could compel an act that had already been performed, and Roberts could challenge the entry’s substance in a separate appeal.

Holdings

1. The action was moot because Judge Marsh had performed the act Roberts sought to compel by issuing a corrected sentencing entry constituting a final, appealable order.
2. Roberts could challenge the substance of the nunc pro tunc sentencing entry in an appeal from that entry, but the alleged errors did not warrant reversal of the dismissal of his moot original action.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the First District properly dismissed Roberts's mandamus and procedendo action as moot after Judge Marsh issued a corrected sentencing entry.
2. Whether Roberts could use the mandamus or procedendo action to challenge alleged substantive errors in the nunc pro tunc sentencing entry.

Disposition

affirmed