Case Title: State ex rel. Hazel v. Bender

Citation: 2011-Ohio-4197

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2011-08-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Hazel v. Bender, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-4197.] 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2011-OHIO-4197 
THE STATE EX REL. HAZEL, APPELLANT, v. BENDER, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Hazel v. Bender,  
Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-4197.] 
Procedendo — Writ of procedendo will not issue to compel the performance of a 
duty that has already been performed — Court of appeals’ denial of writ 
affirmed. 
(No. 2011-0531 — Submitted August 8, 2011 — Decided August 30, 2011.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, 
No. 10AP-435, 2011-Ohio-1027. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the request 
of appellant, Corey Hazel, for a writ of procedendo,1 to compel appellee, Franklin 
County Court of Common Pleas Judge John F. Bender, to resentence him in 
                                          
 
1 The court of appeals also denied Hazel’s request for a writ of prohibition, but he does not contest 
that ruling in his propositions of law. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
accordance with the court’s decision in State v. Hazel (Mar. 31, 2010), Franklin 
App. Nos. 09AP-1132, 09AP-1156, 09AP-1133, and 09AP-1157.  Judge Bender 
has resentenced Hazel.  The judge’s performance of the requested act rendered 
Hazel’s procedendo claim moot.  State ex rel. Howard v. Skow, 102 Ohio St.3d 
423, 2004-Ohio-3652, 811 N.E.2d 1128, ¶ 9. 
{¶ 2} Hazel’s claim on appeal that he was entitled to a writ of 
procedendo to compel his immediate release from prison because Judge Bender 
had unnecessarily delayed in resentencing him lacks merit because no 
unnecessary delay occurred.  Moreover, habeas corpus, rather than procedendo, is 
the proper action to seek release from prison.  See generally State ex rel. Nelson v. 
Griffin, 103 Ohio St.3d 167, 2004-Ohio-4754, 814 N.E.2d 866, ¶ 5 (“habeas 
corpus, rather than mandamus or prohibition, is the proper action to seek” release 
from prison). 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Corey Hazel, pro se. 
______________________