COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 74991 STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. : PETITION FOR WRIT OF KEVIN D. BARCOMB : PROCEDENDO : Relator : MOTION NO. 99016 : vs. : JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION : WILLIAM E. AURELIUS, JUDGE : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO : : Respondent : : DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : OCTOBER 8, 1998 JUDGMENT : WRIT ALLOWED. APPEARANCES: For Relator : KEVIN D. BARCOMB, Pro Se No. 342-229 Marion Correctional Inst. P. O. Box 57 Marion, Ohio 43301-0057 For Respondent : STEPHANIE TUBBS-JONES Cuyahoga County Prosecutor GAIL D. BAKER, Assistant Justice Center, Courts Tower 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, A.J.: Relator requests that this court compel respondent judge to -2- rule on his motion for jail time credit in State v. Barcomb, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case Nos. CR-349797 and 349798 on December 8, 1997. Respondent has filed a motion for summary judgment (Motion No. 98159--which is misnamed answer and motion for summary judgment, see Civ.R. 7 and 56). Respondent argues that relator is not entitled to credit for time served in another jurisdiction for another offense. Although relator has not opposed the motion, respondent's argument fails to address the issue presented by this action in procedendo. As a consequence, we deny respondent's motion for summary judgment. Attached to the complaint in this action are copies of: 1) the motion for jail credit filed on December 8, 1997 in Case No. CR-349797; 2) the motion for jail credit filed on December 8, 1997 in Case No. CR-349798. A review of the docket in Case No. CR-349797 reflects that the clerk twice noted the filing of the motion for jail credit on December 8, 1997. A review of the docket in Case No. CR-349798, however, does not reflect the filing of the motion. Obviously, due to a clerical error, the filing of the motion for jail credit does not appear on the docket for Case No. CR-349798. Nevertheless, respondent has not refuted the fact that a motion for jail credit was filed in both Case Nos. CR-349797 and 349798 on December 8, 1997. Likewise, respondent has not demonstrated that the court of common pleas has disposed of these -3- motions. Extraordinary relief in procedendo is appropriate when a court has either refused to render a judgment or has unnecessarily delayed proceeding to judgment. State ex rel. Miley v. Parrott (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 64,65, 671 N.E.2d 24, 26. State ex rel. Watkins v. Eighth Dist. Court of Appeals (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 532, 535, __ N.E.2d __. In State ex rel. Adkins v. Aurelius (Mar. 27, 1997), Cuyahoga App. No. 71763, unreported, the relator requested that this court issue a writ of mandamus compelling the respondent judge to rule on [relator's] request for leave to file a motion for new trial and motion for new trial, to prepare a journal entry, to make findings of fact and conclusions of law, to hold an evidentiary hearing, and to forward the judgment to him. This court denied the request for relief in mandamus in Adkins noting, inter alia, that the relator had an adequate remedy in procedendo. Relator is entitled to relief in procedendo to compel a disposition of his motions for jail credit filed in Case Nos. CR- 349797 and 349798. That is, the motions for jail credit have been pending for more than nine months. Given the nature of the request for relief and the length of delay in ruling on the motions for jail credit, we hold that relator's request for relief in procedendo is well-taken. Accordingly, respondent is ordered to rule--within thirty days of the date of this entry--on the motions for jail credit filed in Case Nos. CR-349797 and 349798 on December 8, 1997. Respondent to pay costs. -4- Writ allowed. JAMES M. PORTER, J., CONCURS. PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE .