[Cite as State ex rel. Cook v. Forchione, 2017-Ohio-270.]
COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO, EX REL : JUDGES:
ANTHONY M. COOK :
: Hon., Patricia A. Delaney , PJ.
Relator : Hon., Sheila G. Farmer, J.
: Hon., John W. Wise, J.
-vs- :
:
JUDGE FRANK G. FORCHIONE : Case No. 2016CA00136
STARK COUNTY COMMOM PLEAS :
COURT :
:
Respondent : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Mandamus
JUDGMENT: Granted
DATE OF JUDGMENT: January 23, 2017
APPEARANCES:
For Relator: Pro Se For Respondent:
Anthony M. Cook No Appearance
Lebanon Correctional Inst.
3791 State Route 63
Lebanon, Ohio 45036
Stark County, Case No. 16-136 2
Delaney, P.J.
{¶1} Relator, Anthony Cook, has filed a complaint requesting this Court issue a
writ of mandamus requiring the trial court to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law
in support of Respondent’s denial of Relator’s motion for post conviction relief.
{¶2} To be entitled to extraordinary relief in mandamus, [a relator] must establish
a clear legal right to the requested relief, a clear legal duty on the part of [respondent] to
provide it, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex
rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55, 2012–Ohio–69, 960 N.E.2d 452, ¶ 6.
{¶3} “Under R.C. 2953.21(C), findings of fact and conclusions of law are
mandatory if the trial court dismisses a petition for post-conviction relief. State ex rel.
Konoff v. Moon, 79 Ohio St.3d 211, 212, 1997–Ohio–398. Mandamus will lie to compel a
trial court to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law when it dismisses a petition for
post-conviction relief. Id.” State ex rel. Banks v. Court of Common Pleas for Franklin Cty.,
2011-Ohio-5055, ¶ 16 (10th Dist. Franklin).
{¶4} The transcript in Relator’s appeal was filed on August 3, 2015. The motion
for post conviction relief was filed on September 28, 2015, therefore, it appears to have
been a timely motion for post conviction relief.
{¶5} “The rationale for requiring findings of fact and conclusions of law is to
apprise the petitioner of the reasons for the trial court's judgment and to permit meaningful
appellate review. State v. Mapson (1982), 1 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 1 OBR 240, 242, 438
N.E.2d 910, 912. If the entry of the trial court sufficiently apprises the petitioner of the
reasons for the judgment and permits meaningful appellate review, a writ of mandamus
will not be issued to compel findings of fact and conclusions of law. State ex rel. Carrion
Stark County, Case No. 16-136 3
v. Harris (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 19, 19–20, 530 N.E.2d 1330, 1330–1331.” State ex rel.
Konoff v. Moon, 79 Ohio St.3d 211, 1997-Ohio-398, 680 N.E.2d 989 (1997).
{¶6} The entry denying the motion in this case does not contain any findings of
fact or conclusions of law and does not apprise Relator of the reason for denying the
motion.
{¶7} Relator has established his clear legal right to have the trial court issue
findings of fact and conclusions of law as well as the trial court’s corresponding duty to
supply them. We also find Relator has no adequate remedy at law to obtain the requested
relief, therefore, the writ of mandamus will issue. Respondent shall issue an order
containing findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by R.C. 2953.21.
By, Delaney, P.J.
Farmer, J. and
Wise, J. concur.
[Cite as State ex rel. Cook v. Forchione, 2017-Ohio-270.]
State ex rel. Cook v. Forchione
Combined Opinion