Title: State ex rel. Gopp v. Wiest

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. Gopp v. Wiest, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-4557.] 
 
 
 
 
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-4557 
THE STATE EX REL. GOPP, APPELLANT, v. WIEST, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Gopp v. Wiest, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-4557.] 
Mandamus—Procedendo—Relator seeks to compel trial judge to issue new 
sentencing entry—Relator had adequate remedy by way of appeal—Writ 
denied. 
(No. 2014-0463—Submitted October 7, 2014—Decided October 16, 2014, 2014.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Wayne County, No. 13CA0057. 
_____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals granting the motion 
to dismiss of appellee, Judge Mark K. Wiest, and dismissing the petition of 
appellant, Clayton Gopp, for writs of mandamus and/or procedendo.  Because 
Gopp has an adequate remedy at law, he is not entitled to the writs. 
{¶ 2} To obtain a writ of mandamus, Gopp must establish a clear legal 
right to the requested relief, a clear legal duty on the part of Judge Wiest to grant 
it, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.  State ex 
rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55, 2012-Ohio-69, 960 N.E.2d 452, ¶ 6. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 3} Similarly, for a writ of procedendo, Gopp 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). 
{¶ 4} As pointed out by the court of appeals, for both writs, Gopp must 
show that he lacked an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.  Gopp 
filed with Judge Wiest a motion to vacate the criminal judgment against him and 
to withdraw his guilty plea.  Wiest denied the motion on May 14, 2013.  Rather 
than appealing that denial, Gopp filed a new case in the court of appeals seeking 
mandamus and procedendo. 
{¶ 5} Gopp had a remedy by way of the motion to vacate his sentence, 
which he did file, and an appeal from the denial of that motion, which he did not.  
He therefore had an adequate remedy at law.  He is not entitled to either writ, and 
we affirm. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
_____________________ 
 
Clayton Gopp, pro se.  
Daniel R. Lutz, Wayne County Prosecuting Attorney, and Nathan R. 
Shaker, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
_____________________