On Tuesday, December 31, 2024, inmate Kent Smith filed a petition with the Ohio Supreme Court seeking a writ of procedendo against Judge Patrick T. Dinkelacker of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas. Smith’s petition requests the Supreme Court to compel Judge Dinkelacker to rule on several pending motions and applications that he claims have been delayed excessively.
In his petition, Smith outlined four specific filings awaiting judgment from Judge Dinkelacker. These include two applications for DNA testing submitted on July 3, 2023, and August 30, 2023, respectively. Additionally, Smith referenced a motion filed on December 12, 2023, to vacate and set aside his judgment and conviction, as well as a motion for leave to file a motion for a new trial submitted on January 3, 2024.
Smith argues that the lack of ruling on these applications and motions constitutes a failure of duty by the Respondent, Judge Dinkelacker. He cites Ohio Revised Code sections and constitutional provisions to support his request for the Supreme Court to intervene. The inmate asserts that the delay in receiving a ruling has hindered his ability to seek legal remedies effectively.
The petition emphasizes that under the Ohio legal framework, a Writ of Procedendo is an order from a court of superior jurisdiction directing a court of inferior jurisdiction to proceed with judgment. Smith claims that he has established a clear legal right to the relief sought and contends that there is no adequate remedy at law available to him, thereby justifying his petition.
Judge Dinkelacker, who has served as a judge in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, handles cases within the Criminal Division, which includes post-conviction relief matters. Smith’s petition highlights that despite repeated requests for rulings on his applications and motions, Judge Dinkelacker has not issued any decisions, which Smith argues is contrary to the expectations of the judicial process.
In his affidavit accompanying the petition, Smith details his history of legal filings over the past five years, which includes multiple notices of appeal, motions for new trials, and applications for DNA testing. He asserts that his attempts to seek relief through the appropriate legal channels have been met with inaction from the court.
The implications of Smith’s petition are significant, as they raise questions about judicial efficiency and the responsiveness of the court system in handling inmate petitions, especially those related to DNA testing and post-conviction relief. Smith’s claims point to a broader concern about the timely administration of justice, particularly for individuals seeking to challenge their convictions.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
