Title: Shoop v. State

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Shoop v. State, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-2068.] 
 
 
 
 
 
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. 2015-OHIO-2068 
SHOOP, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF OHIO ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Shoop v. State, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-2068.] 
Mandamus—Adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law— Procedendo 
will not compel the performance of a duty that has already been 
performed—Court of appeals’ dismissal of petition for writs affirmed. 
(No. 2014-1477—Submitted February 3, 2015—Decided June 2, 2015.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hancock County, No. 05-14-09. 
_____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the court of appeals’ judgment dismissing a petition for 
writs of mandamus and procedendo.  The arguments raised by appellant, Frank 
Ray Shoop, in support of his petition for a writ of mandamus relate to issues that 
he could have raised on appeal, thus precluding a writ of mandamus.  And 
appellee Judge Reginald Routson has ruled on his “motion to vacate a void 
judgment,” thus precluding a writ of procedendo. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
Facts and procedural history 
{¶ 2} Shoop was found guilty of felonious sexual penetration and 
sentenced to 10 to 25 years in prison in 1992.  He appealed, and the conviction 
and sentence were affirmed.  State v. Shoop, 87 Ohio App.3d 462, 622 N.E.2d 
665 (3d Dist.1993).  Shoop has since filed several postconviction motions that 
were denied. 
{¶ 3} On May 12, 2014, Shoop filed an original action in procedendo in 
the Third District Court of Appeals contending that Judge Routson had failed to 
rule on a motion “to vacate a void judgment” that Shoop had filed in July 2013.  
He also requested a writ of mandamus, asking for an order directing the trial court 
to correct a number of alleged errors in the trial proceedings. 
{¶ 4} The court of appeals dismissed the mandamus claim because his 
allegations of error at the trial were “not properly raised or cognizable in an 
original action.”  3d Dist. No. 4-14-09 (July 9, 2014), 1.  The court dismissed the 
procedendo claim because the trial court had ruled on the motion. 
{¶ 5} Shoop has now appealed to this court. 
Analysis 
{¶ 6} To be entitled to a writ of procedendo, Shoop 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). 
{¶ 7} Here, the trial court ruled on Shoop’s motion on August 13, 2013.  
Therefore, the court of appeals properly held that Shoop is not entitled to a writ of 
procedendo. 
January Term, 2015 
 
3
{¶ 8} To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, Shoop must establish a clear 
legal right to the requested relief, a clear legal duty on the part of the court 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. An appeal is generally considered an adequate remedy in the ordinary course 
of law sufficient to preclude a writ.  State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm., 11 
Ohio St.2d 141, 228 N.E.2d 631 (1967), paragraph three of the syllabus. 
{¶ 9} The constitutional and evidentiary issues raised by Shoop in his 
mandamus claim could have been and should have been raised in the appeal of his 
conviction.  R.C. 2731.05.  Because Shoop had an adequate remedy in the 
ordinary course of the law by way of appeal, the court of appeals properly 
dismissed his claim in mandamus.  State ex rel. Natl. Emps. Network Alliance, 
Inc. v. Ryan, 125 Ohio St.3d 11, 2010-Ohio-578, 925 N.E.2d 947, ¶ 1 
(“Mandamus cannot issue when the relator has an adequate remedy at law”). 
{¶ 10} In addition to having an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of 
the law, Shoop is not entitled to a writ of mandamus because R.C. 2731.04 
provides that an application for a writ of mandamus “must be * * * in the name of 
the state on the relation of the person applying.”  Thus, a petition for a writ of 
mandamus may be dismissed for failure to bring the action in the name of the 
state.  Blankenship v. Blackwell, 103 Ohio St.3d 567, 2004-Ohio-5596, 817 
N.E.2d 382, ¶ 34.  Accord Maloney v. Sacks, 173 Ohio St. 237, 238, 181 N.E.2d 
268 (1962).  Shoop’s complaint was not brought in the name of the state, and 
therefore his claims for a writ of mandamus were properly dismissed. 
{¶ 11} We therefore affirm the judgment of the Third District Court of 
Appeals dismissing Shoop’s petition. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
_____________________ 
 
Frank Ray Shoop, pro se. 
 
Mark C. Miller, Hancock County Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
________________________