The Ohio Court of Appeals has dismissed a petition filed by Deondre Inkton, a man seeking a writ of procedendo against Judge Jennifer O'Donnell. The court ruled that Inkton's request was moot because the judge had already issued rulings on the motions in question. This decision affects Inkton, who had been awaiting responses to several motions related to his criminal cases.

Inkton, representing himself, sought the writ to compel Judge O'Donnell to rule on multiple pending motions in two criminal cases against him. The court's ruling highlights the importance of timely judicial decisions and the procedural requirements for seeking extraordinary relief.

Background

Deondre Inkton faced serious criminal charges, including trafficking in persons and sexual battery. In 2025, he pled guilty to several counts and received a lengthy prison sentence of 30 to 37½ years. Following his conviction, Inkton filed a direct appeal, which the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed in February 2026.

On May 26, 2026, Inkton filed a petition for a writ of procedendo, aiming to compel Judge O'Donnell to rule on various motions he had submitted in his cases. These included requests to withdraw his guilty plea and motions for a prompt ruling on his previous filings. Inkton argued that the judge’s delay in responding to these motions was unreasonable.

The Ruling

On August 5, 2026, the Ohio Court of Appeals, led by Judge Sean C. Gallagher, dismissed Inkton's petition, stating that it was moot. The court noted that Inkton had already received rulings on all the motions he sought to compel. “Procedendo will not compel the performance of a duty that has already been performed,” the court wrote, emphasizing that Inkton's claims were no longer valid.

The court also pointed out that Inkton had failed to pay the necessary fees for filing his petition and had not submitted the required documentation to support his claim of indigency. This procedural deficiency contributed to the dismissal of his petition.

Impact

This ruling underscores the importance of following proper legal procedures when seeking relief from the courts. It illustrates that if a court has already acted on a matter, any request to compel further action may be considered moot. This decision may serve as a precedent for similar cases where individuals seek to compel judges to act on motions that have already been resolved.

For Inkton, this ruling means he must now focus on the outcomes of his previous motions and any potential appeals regarding his convictions. The court's dismissal of his petition highlights the challenges faced by individuals representing themselves in complex legal matters.

What's Next

Inkton has the option to appeal this ruling, but details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases or further actions he may take. He will need to consider his next steps carefully, especially given the court's emphasis on procedural compliance.