Title: Lowe v. Callahan

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Lowe v. Callahan, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-3689.] 
 
 
 
 
 
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. 2013-OHIO-3689 
[THE STATE EX REL.] LOWE, APPELLANT, v. CALLAHAN, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as State ex rel. Lowe v. Callahan,  
Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-3689.] 
Court of appeals’ judgment dismissing complaint for writ of procedendo 
affirmed—Procedendo will not compel the performance of a duty that has 
already been performed. 
(No. 2013-0441—Submitted August 21, 2013—Decided September 4, 2013.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Summit County, No. 26758. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying relief to 
appellant, Dennis Ray Lowe, on his complaint for a writ of procedendo.  Lowe 
seeks to compel appellee, Judge Lynne Callahan, to issue a ruling on his motion 
in arrest of judgment.  He alleges that he filed his motion on August 10, 2012, and 
that Judge Callahan has not ruled on it. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} Judge Callahan moved the court of appeals to dismiss the 
complaint, arguing that the action was moot because she had ruled on Lowe’s 
motion on August 22, 2012.  The Ninth District Court of Appeals granted the 
motion.  Lowe appealed as of right. 
{¶ 3} In his first proposition of law, Lowe argues that Judge Callahan’s 
ruling on August 22, 2012, was on the wrong issue.  Lowe claims that his motion 
dealt with a structural-error violation, not a speedy-trial violation.  He claims that 
the judge’s failure to rule on the correct violation violates his due process rights.  
In his second proposition of law, he likewise argues that the Ninth District should 
not have dismissed his complaint for a writ of procedendo, because the judge did 
not rule on his structural-error challenge. 
{¶ 4} As the court below correctly reasoned, relief is unwarranted here 
because procedendo will not compel the performance of a duty that has already 
been performed.  State ex rel. Fontanella v. Kontos, 117 Ohio St.3d 514, 2008-
Ohio-1431, 885 N.E.2d 220, ¶ 6, citing State ex rel. Howard v. Doneghy, 102 
Ohio St.3d 355, 2004-Ohio-3207, 810 N.E.2d 958, ¶ 6.  Judge Callahan ruled on 
Lowe’s motion on August 22, 2012, only 12 days after he had filed it.  Therefore, 
the judge has performed the duty that the writ of procedendo seeks to compel. 
{¶ 5} Lowe’s argument is not that the judge failed to rule on his motion 
but that she addressed the wrong issue in her ruling.  That argument should have 
been raised in an appeal of the ruling rather than in an action for a writ of 
procedendo. 
{¶ 6} Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of 
appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
____________________ 
January Term, 2013 
 
3
 
Dennis Ray Lowe, pro se. 
 
Sherri Bevan Walsh, Summit County Prosecuting Attorney, and Richard 
S. Kasay, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
________________________