On Tuesday, February 24, 2026, the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed a judgment by the Eighth District Court of Appeals, effectively denying Tramaine E. Martin’s request for a writ of procedendo against Judge Timothy McCormick of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas.
The case, styled State ex rel. Martin v. McCormick, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-568, centered on Martin’s attempt to compel Judge McCormick to “properly journalize” a ruling related to a successive petition for postconviction relief.
The legal dispute originated in March 2025 when Martin filed a petition for a writ of procedendo, alleging that Judge McCormick had initially denied two motions related to his postconviction relief petition, then seemingly reconsidered that decision. Martin supported his claim by referencing a trial court docket entry indicating “GRANTED” next to the filing of the motions. He argued that Judge McCormick needed to formally record, or journalize, the ruling granting of these motions.
However, Judge McCormick subsequently denied Martin’s successive motion for postconviction relief, arguing it was untimely. Following this, McCormick filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that Martin’s petition for a writ of procedendo was moot because the postconviction petition had already been denied, thus fulfilling any duty to compel action. Martin did not timely respond to the summary judgment motion.
The Eighth District Court of Appeals sided with Judge McCormick, granting the summary judgment motion. The appellate court found that McCormick had provided sufficient evidence that he had denied Martin’s successive petition for postconviction relief, rendering the request for a writ of procedendo moot. The court further noted that Martin had failed to dispute the mootness of the action by not responding to the summary judgment motion.
On appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, Martin argued that the Eighth District erred in granting summary judgment because Judge McCormick’s judgment denying his successive petition for postconviction relief was invalid. He claimed the judgment was not a final, appealable order because it lacked proper labeling, time-stamping, and the judge’s signature on the accompanying journal entry.
The Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion, found that Martin had forfeited this argument by failing to raise it in the Eighth District Court of Appeals. The court cited established precedent that arguments not presented at the appellate level are waived for the purposes of further appeal.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
