Case Title: State ex rel. Wright v. Niehaus

Citation: 2014-Ohio-4551

Docket Number: 2014-0033

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2014-10-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Wright v. Niehaus, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-4551.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2014-OHIO-4551 
THE STATE EX REL. WRIGHT, APPELLANT, v. NIEHAUS, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Wright v. Niehaus,  
Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-4551.] 
Procedendo—Relator seeks writ to compel trial judge to rule on motion for new 
trial—Record does not show that motion was ever filed—Writ denied. 
(No. 2014-0033—Submitted October 7, 2014—Decided October 16, 2014.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-130743. 
_____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the Hamilton County Court of Appeals’ judgment 
dismissing a petition for writ of procedendo to compel a trial judge to rule on 
relator Christopher Wright’s motion for a new trial.  There being no evidence that 
Wright’s motion was ever filed in the trial court, the court of appeals was correct 
in dismissing the petition. 
Facts 
{¶ 2} Wright was convicted of felonious assault in the trial court. Wright 
appealed his conviction, and the court of appeals affirmed. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 3} Wright asserts that he filed a pro se motion for a new trial.  The 
visiting judge to whom the motion was directed filed a motion to dismiss, 
asserting that no motion for a new trial was ever filed by Wright in his case.  
Wright responded to the motion, and the court of appeals dismissed the complaint. 
{¶ 4} Wright appealed to this court. 
Analysis 
{¶ 5} To be entitled to a writ of procedendo, Wright must show a clear 
legal right to require the court to proceed, a clear legal duty on the part of the 
court to proceed, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the 
law.  State ex rel. Sherrills v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 72 Ohio 
St.3d 461, 462, 650 N.E.2d 899 (1995).  A writ of procedendo is proper when a 
court has refused to enter judgment or has unnecessarily delayed proceeding to 
judgment.  State ex rel. Crandall, Pheils & Wisniewski v. DeCessna, 73 Ohio 
St.3d 180, 184, 652 N.E.2d 742 (1995). 
{¶ 6} In this case, there is no evidence that any motion for a new trial 
was ever filed.  The docket for the case, attached to Judge Neihaus’s motion to 
dismiss below, shows no such motion, and the copy of the motion attached to the 
complaint is not time-stamped by the clerk of the trial court. The partial transcript 
of a hearing in which the motion is mentioned shows only that the judge had 
never seen such a motion and is confused about whether it had been filed. 
{¶ 7} As it does not appear that any motion for a new trial was ever 
successfully filed by Wright, he is not entitled to a writ of procedendo compelling 
the judge to rule on it. 
{¶ 8} We affirm. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
_____________________ 
January Term, 2014 
 
3
 
Christopher Wright, pro se. 
 
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Scott M. 
Heenan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
_____________________