In State ex rel. Hunter v. Cuyahoga Cty. Ct. of Common Pleas (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 176, 2000 Ohio 285, 724 N.E.2d 420, the criminal defendant was already going forward with the appeal of his conviction when he noted that parts of the trial proceedings had been omitted from the record. Accordingly, he moved the trial court to add the omitted parts to the trial record. Before the trial court could issue a ruling upon the motion, though, the appellate court rendered its final opinion on the merits of the appeal. Approximately eighteen months later, the defendant initiated a mandamus action to compel the trial court to "correct" the trial record through the inclusion of those alleged omitted portions. After the appellate court had granted summary judgment for the trial court on the mandamus claim, the defendant appealed the matter to the Supreme Court. In affirming the summary judgment decision, the Hunter court first stated that the merits of the mandamus claim had technically become moot because the trial court had recently issued a ruling upon the original motion which had been submitted while the appeal of the conviction had been pending. Nevertheless, the Hunter opinion still went forward to address the question of whether the defendant's use of a mandamus action to correct the trial record had been appropriate: "Moreover, the defendant had adequate remedies by App.R. 9(E) and appeal to correct any material omissions from his record. Even if, as the defendant claims, his trial court did not rule on his motion until after the court of appeals had resolved his appeal, he could have raised his claim in a motion in the court of appeals before his appeal had been decided." Id., at 177.