[Cite as State ex rel. Hough v. Saffold, 2011-Ohio-3477.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio 

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 96468 

 

STATE OF OHIO EX REL., 

TERRANCE HOUGH 

RELATOR 

vs. 

HONORABLE SHIRLEY STRICKLAND SAFFOLD 

RESPONDENT 

 

JUDGMENT: 

WRIT DENIED 

Writ of Mandamus and/or Procedendo 

Motion No. 442897 
2

Order No. 445491 

RELEASE DATE: July 11, 2011

FOR RELATOR

Terrance M. Hough, Jr. 

Inmate No. A550-442 

Toledo Correctional Institution 

2001 East Central Avenue 

Toledo, Ohio 43608-0033 

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT

William D. Mason 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

By: James E. Moss 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

8th Floor Justice Center 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 

MARY J. BOYLE, J.: 

{¶ 1} On March 1, 2011, the relator, Terrance Hough, commenced this mandamus 

and/or procedendo action against the respondent, Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold, to compel 

the judge to issue final, appealable orders for (1) a denial of a motion to recuse herself, and (2) 

a denial of a motion to supplement a postconviction relief petition in the underlying case, State 

v. Hough, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Case No. CR-499308. The respondent 

moved for summary judgment on March 17, 2011, and Hough filed his reply brief on April 1, 
3

2011. For the following reasons, this court grants the respondent’s motion for summary 

judgment and denies the application for a writ of mandamus or procedendo. 

Factual and Procedural Background 

{¶ 2} In the underlying case in May 2008, a jury convicted Hough of three counts of 

aggravated murder and two counts of attempted murder, all with three-year firearm 

specifications, and the trial court sentenced him to three consecutive sentences of life without 

parole, consecutive to two consecutive ten-year sentences and consecutive to three years for 

the firearm specifications. The docket of the underlying case shows the following: On 

December 30, 2009, Hough filed his first postconviction relief petition along with a motion to 

amend. On January 7, 2010, the trial court denied both the postconviction relief petition 

and the motion to amend. On July 16, 2010, Hough filed a second postconviction relief 

petition, which the trial court denied on August 4, 2010. On September 9, 2010, Hough 

moved the trial court to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law. Then on September 

22, 2010, he moved for Judge Saffold to recuse herself and moved to supplement the 

postconviction relief petition. Judge Saffold issued findings of fact and conclusions of law 

on October 5, 2010. She denied the motion to recuse herself and the motion to supplement 

the postconviction relief petition on October 7, 2010. 
4

{¶ 3} Hough appealed these decisions in State v. Hough, Cuyahoga County Court of 

Appeals Case No. 95954. This court sua sponte dismissed this appeal for lack of a final, 

appealable order pursuant to R.C. 2505.02 on November 8, 2010. Hough then commenced 

this mandamus and/or procedendo action to compel Judge Saffold to issue final, appealable 

orders. 

Discussion of Law 

{¶ 4} The requisites for mandamus are well established: (1) the relator must have a 

clear legal right to the requested relief, (2) the respondent must have a clear legal duty to 

perform the requested relief, and (3) there must be no adequate remedy at law. Additionally, 

although mandamus may be used to compel a court to exercise judgment or to discharge a 

function, it may not control judicial discretion, even if that discretion is grossly abused. State 

ex rel. Ney v. Niehaus (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 118, 515 N.E.2d 914. Furthermore, mandamus 

is not a substitute for appeal. State ex rel. Keenan v. Calabrese (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 176, 

631 N.E.2d 119; State ex rel. Daggett v. Gessaman (1973), 34 Ohio St.2d 55, 295 N.E.2d 659; 

and State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm. of Ohio (1967), 11 Ohio St.2d 141, 228 N.E.2d 

631, paragraph three of the syllabus. Thus, mandamus does not lie to correct errors and 

procedural irregularities in the course of a case. State ex rel. Jerninghan v. Gaughan (Sept. 

26, 1994), Cuyahoga App. No. 67787. Furthermore, if the relator had an adequate remedy, 
5

regardless of whether it was used, relief in mandamus is precluded. State ex rel. Tran v. 

McGrath, 78 Ohio St.3d 45, 1997-Ohio-245, 676 N.E.2d 108, and State ex rel. Boardwalk 

Shopping Ctr., Inc. v. Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga Cty. (1990), 56 Ohio St.3d 33, 564 

N.E.2d 86. Moreover, mandamus is an extraordinary remedy which is to be exercised with 

caution and only when the right is clear. It should not issue in doubtful cases. State ex rel. 

Taylor v. Glasser (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 165, 364 N.E.2d 1; State ex rel. Shafer v. Ohio 

Turnpike Comm. (1953), 159 Ohio St. 581, 113 N.E.2d 14; State ex rel. Connole v. Cleveland 

Bd. of Ed. (1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 43, 621 N.E.2d 850; and State ex rel. Dayton-Oakwood 

Press v. Dissinger (1940), 32 Ohio Law Abs. 308. 

{¶ 5} The writ of procedendo is merely an order from a court of superior jurisdiction 

to one of inferior jurisdiction to proceed to judgment. Yee v. Erie County Sheriff’s Dept.

(1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 43, 553 N.E.2d 1354. Procedendo is appropriate when a court has 

either refused to render a judgment or has unnecessarily delayed proceeding to judgment. 

State ex rel. Watkins v. Eighth Dist. Court of Appeals, 82 Ohio St.3d 532, 1998-Ohio-190, 

696 N.E.2d 1079. However, the writ will not issue to control what the judgment should be, 

nor will it issue for the purpose of controlling or interfering with ordinary court procedure. 

Thus, procedendo will not lie to control the exercise of judicial discretion. Moreover, it will 

not issue if the petitioner has or had an adequate remedy at law. State ex rel. Utley v. Abruzzo
6

(1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 202, 478 N.E.2d 789; State ex rel. Hansen v. Reed (1992), 63 Ohio 

St.3d 597, 589 N.E.2d 1324; and Howard v. Cuyahoga Cty. Probate Court, Cuyahoga App. 

No. 84702, 2004-Ohio-4621 (petitioner failed to use an adequate remedy at law). 

{¶ 6} A trial judge’s denial of a motion to recuse is not an appealable order. In 

Beer v. Griffith (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 440, 377 N.E.2d 775, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled 

that only the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio or his designee may rule upon the 

disqualification of a judge. Thus, the Court of Appeals is without jurisdiction to rule upon 

the disqualification of a judge, and that includes review of a motion to recuse. State v. 

Ramos (1993), 88 Ohio App.3d 394, 623 N.E.2d 1336; State v. Cody, Cuyahoga App. No. 

95753, 2011-Ohio-2289; and State v. Scruggs, Cuyahoga App. No. 94518, 2010-Ohio-5604. 

Therefore, Hough does not have a clear, legal right to a final, appealable order for a motion to 

recuse, and the trial judge has no duty to issue one. Furthermore, Judge Saffold ruled on the 

motion. Neither mandamus nor procedendo will lie for this matter. 

{¶ 7} As to the motion to supplement the postconviction relief petition, the respondent 

judge fulfilled her duty by ruling on the motion. There is no duty to issue findings of fact 

and conclusions of law for untimely or successive postconviction relief petitions, much less 

motions to supplement such petitions. State ex rel. Kimbrough v. Greene, 98 Ohio St.3d 116, 

2002-Ohio-7042, 781 N.E.2d 155; State ex rel. Workman v. McGrath (1980), 40 Ohio St.3d 
7

91, 532 N.E.2d 105; and State ex rel. Jefferson v. Russo, Cuyahoga App. No. 90682, 

2008-Ohio-135. Thus, Hough has not established a clear, legal duty or a clear, legal right to 

a more complete ruling on the motion to supplement. Moreover, Hough had an adequate 

remedy at law by seeking appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio. 

{¶ 8} Accordingly, this court grants the respondent’s motion for summary judgment 

and denies the application for a writ of mandamus and/or procedendo. 

Costs assessed against relator. This court directs the clerk of court for the Eighth District 

Court of Appeals to serve upon the parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon 

the journal. Civ.R. 58(B). 

____________________________ 

MARY J. BOYLE, JUDGE 

MELODY J. STEWART, P.J., and 

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR