Title: State ex rel. Roberts v. Marsh

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. Roberts v. Marsh, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-5242.] 
  
 
 
 
 
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-5242 
[THE STATE EX REL.] ROBERTS, APPELLANT, v. MARSH, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Roberts v. Marsh,  
Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-5242.] 
Procedendo—Motion for new trial—Writ compelling judge to rule on motion not 
available when ruling already issued—Dismissal of petition affirmed. 
(No. 2014-0716—Submitted November 18, 2014—Decided December 3, 2014.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-140180. 
_____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the First District Court of Appeals’ dismissal of the 
petition for a writ of procedendo filed by appellant, Mallon Roberts.  Roberts was 
found guilty of murder following a jury trial.  On appeal he argued that certain 
evidence should not have been allowed in the trial.  State v. Roberts, 1st Dist. 
Hamilton No. C-050279, 2007-Ohio-856.  His conviction was affirmed.  Despite 
having argued the issue on appeal, Roberts filed a motion for a new trial on the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
same basis on November 7, 2013.  Shortly thereafter, the trial court judge, 
respondent Melba Marsh, overruled the motion. 
{¶ 2} Roberts filed this action in the court of appeals, asking that the 
court issue a writ of procedendo ordering Judge Marsh to rule on his motion.  
Judge Marsh filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the motion for a new trial 
had been ruled on. The court of appeals, finding that the motion to dismiss was 
“well taken,” dismissed the case.  Roberts appealed. 
{¶ 3} To be entitled to a writ of procedendo, Roberts 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} Roberts asserts that Judge Marsh’s ruling on his motion was not a 
proper ruling, as it did not include findings of fact and conclusions of law as 
required for judgments denying postconviction relief under R.C. 2953.21. 
{¶ 5} However, Roberts could have appealed Judge Marsh’s ruling on 
the basis that it lacked findings of fact and conclusions of law or he could have 
moved for such findings and conclusions.  He therefore had adequate alternative 
remedies in the ordinary course of the law.  In addition, as Judge Marsh has in 
fact ruled on his motion, he is not entitled to a writ of procedendo. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, and 
FRENCH, JJ., concur. 
O’NEILL, J., dissents and would dismiss the appeal. 
_____________________ 
January Term, 2014 
 
3
 
Mallon Roberts, pro se. 
 
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Scott M. 
Heenan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
_____________________