{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the complaint of appellant, Douglas Lee Samples, for writs of mandamus and procedendo. Samples is not entitled to the requested extraordinary relief in mandamus for his claims of sentencing error, because he had an adequate remedy by way of appeal to raise his claims. See R.C. 2731.05; State ex rel. Barr v. Sutula, 132 Ohio St.3d *181 297, 2012-Ohio-2790, 971 N.E.2d 928 (court affirmed judgment dismissing mandamus claim because appellant “had an adequate remedy by way of appeal from his sentencing entry to raise his claim of sentencing error”). Moreover, insofar as Samples sought writs of mandamus and procedendo to compel the issuance of a valid sentence and rulings on motions that were pending when he filed his complaint, the trial court has provided the requested relief. See, e.g., State v. Samples, 5th Dist. No. 2010-CA-00122, 2011-Ohio-179, 2011 WL 198433, affirming the trial court’s revised sentencing entry. “Neither mandamus nor procedendo will lie to compel an act that has already been performed.” State ex rel. Lester v. Pepple, 130 Ohio St.3d 353, 2011-Ohio-5756, 958 N.E.2d 566, ¶ 1. 1

Judgment affirmed.