Court Opinion

ID: 9388744
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-21 16:07:38.500567+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:22.270667
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State ex rel. Alexander v. Bell, 2023-Ohio-1285.]

                                COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                              EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                 COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE EX REL. DANTEZ D.                                  :
ALEXANDER,
                                                         :
                 Relator,                                       No. 112499
                                                         :
                 v.

RICHARD A. BELL,                                         :

                 Respondent.                             :

                                JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
                 JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED
                 DATED: April 18, 2023

                                           Writ of Procedendo
                                           Motion No. 563193
                                           Order No. 563244

                                              Appearances:
                 Dantez D. Alexander, pro se
                 Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
                 Attorney and James E. Moss, Assistant Prosecuting
                 Attorney, for respondent.

EMANUELLA D. GROVES, J.:

                 Dantez Alexander, the relator, has filed a complaint for a writ of

procedendo. Alexander seeks an order from this court that compels Judge Richard

A. Bell, the respondent, to render rulings with regard to motions to vacate the

sentences imposed in State v. Alexander, Cuyahoga C.P. Nos. CR-16-602710-A and
CR-18-627825-A. Judge Bell has filed a motion for summary judgment that is

granted.

             Attached to the motion for summary judgment is a copy of a judgment

entry, journalized March 22, 2023, which demonstrates that Judge Bell has denied

Alexander’s motions to vacate sentence. Relief is unwarranted because the request

for a writ of procedendo is moot. Procedendo will not compel the performance of a

duty that has already been performed. State ex rel. Ames v. Pokorny, 164 Ohio St.3d

538, 2021-Ohio-2070, 173 N.E.3d 1208; Thompson v. Donnelly, 155 Ohio St.3d 184,

2018-Ohio-4073, 119 N.E.3d 1292; State ex rel. S.Y.C. v. Floyd, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga

No. 109602, 2020-Ohio-5189.

             It must also be noted that Alexander possesses an adequate remedy in

the ordinary course of the law through a timely appeal of Judge Bell’s denial of the

motions to vacate. State ex rel. Peoples v. Johnson, 152 Ohio St.3d 418, 2017-Ohio-

9140, 97 N.E.3d 426; State ex rel. Luoma v. Russo, 141 Ohio St.3d 53, 2014-Ohio-

4532, 21 N.E.3d 305.

             Accordingly, we grant Judge Bell’s motion for summary judgment.

Costs to Judge Bell; costs waived. The court directs the clerk of courts to serve all

parties with notice of this judgment and the date of entry upon the journal as

required by Civ.R. 58(B).
           Writ denied.

_________________________
EMANUELLA D. GROVES, JUDGE

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, P.J., and
MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR