[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Roberts v. Marsh , Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-1540.]

NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to f ormal revision before it is pu blished in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are reques ted to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohi o, 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.

S LIP O PINION N O
. 2020-O HIO -1540
T HE S TATE EX REL
. R OBERTS , A PPELLANT , v . M ARSH , J UDGE , A PPELLEE . [Until this opinion appears in t he Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Roberts v. Marsh , Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-1540.]
Mandamus—Procedendo—Mootness—Neither m andamus nor procedendo will compel the performance of a duty that has already been performed—Court of appeals’ judgment of dismissal affirmed. (No. 2019-1469—Submitted February 11, 2020—Decided April 22, 20 20.)

A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-190494.

__________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} This appeal involves a request by appellant, Mallon Roberts, fo r a writ of procedendo and/or mandamus to compel appellee, Hamilton Coun ty Court of Common Pleas Judge Melba D. Marsh, to issue a corrected sentenc ing entry. The First District Court of Appeals dismissed Roberts’s petition as moot. We affirm.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 {¶ 2} In 2005, Roberts was convicted of murder with a repeat-violentoffender specification. State v. Roberts , 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-050279, 2007- Ohio-856, ¶ 1. He received a prison sentence of 15 years to li fe for the murder conviction and a 10-year prison sentence for the specification, to be served consecutively. Id . He appealed, and the First Di strict affirmed his convictions and
sentence in 2007. Id. at ¶ 16. {¶ 3} In its sentencing entry, the trial court indicated that Roberts would be subject to a term of postrelease control if he were ever releas ed from prison. In 2015,
Roberts asked the trial court to correct his sentence based on several arguments, including that he had been improperly sentenced to postrelease control. See State v.
Roberts , 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-150528, 2017-Ohio-1060, ¶ 3. The tr ial court denied the motion, and on appeal the First District determined that the trial court erred in imposing a term of postrelease control because Roberts had r eceived an indefinite prison sentence for murder. Id . at ¶ 11. The First District remanded the case, instructing the trial court to va cate the postrelease-control s entence. Id . at ¶ 13. {¶ 4} In March 2018, Judge Marsh vacated the postrelease-control sentence. Roberts appealed that order, but in November 2018, t he First District dismissed his appeal for lack of a final, appealable order beca use the trial court had
not set forth all the informati on required under Crim.R. 32(C) in a single document.
See State v. Lester , 130 Ohio St.3d 303, 2011-Ohio-5204, 958 N.E.2d 142, paragraph one of the syllabus. {¶ 5} In August 2019, Roberts filed an original action in the First D istrict seeking a writ of procedendo and/ or mandamus to compel Judge Ma rsh to issue a corrected sentencing entry that constitutes a final, appealable order. In September 2019, Judge Marsh issued a nunc pro tunc sentencing entry and m oved to dismiss Roberts’s petition as moot. The First District granted the mot ion to dismiss, and Roberts appealed to this court as of right.January Term, 2020

3 {¶ 6} Because Judge Marsh performed the act Roberts requested by issu ing a corrected sentencing entry that constitutes a final, appealable order, the First District correctly dismissed Roberts’s petition as moot. See State ex rel. Nelson v. Russo , 89 Ohio St.3d 227, 228, 729 N.E.2d 1181 (2000) (an event that caus es an action to become moot may be demonstrated by extrinsic evidence outside t he record). “Neither procedendo nor mandamus will compel the performance of a duty that has already been performed.” State ex rel. Grove v. Nadel , 84 Ohio St.3d 252, 253, 703 N.E.2d 304 (1998). Although Roberts argues that there are seve ral errors concerning the nunc pro tunc sentencing entry, he has not shown that the c ourt of appeals’ judgment of dismissal should be reversed. Roberts may challeng e the substance of the nunc pro tunc sentencing entry in an appeal from the entry itself. See id . We therefore affirm the judgmen t of the court of appeals. Judgment affirmed.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and K ENNEDY , F RENCH , D E W INE , D ONNELLY , and
S TEWART , JJ., concur.
F ISCHER , J., not participating.

_________________ Mallon Roberts, pro se. Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Sco tt M. Heenan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

_________________