State ex rel. Carrion v. Harris

• Decision Date: 30 November 1988
• Docket Number: No. 88-861,88-861
• Citation: 530 N.E.2d 1330,40 Ohio St.3d 19
• Parties: The STATE, ex rel. CARRION, Appellant, v. HARRIS, Judge, Appellee.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 19

40 Ohio St.3d 19

530 N.E.2d 1330

The STATE, ex rel. CARRION, Appellant, v. HARRIS, Judge, Appellee.

No. 88-861.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted Sept. 8, 1988.

Decided Nov. 30, 1988.

Appellant, Jose A. Carrion, is in prison, convicted of aggravated burglary and robbery. He filed a petition for post-conviction relief in the Court of Common Pleas of Lorain County. By journal entry filed January 13, 1988, the court denied post-conviction relief on grounds that all issues raised in the petition were or could have been raised on direct appeal and were, therefore, res judicata.

On January 21, 1988, appellant filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus in the Court of Appeals for Lorain County seeking to compel appellee, Floyd D. Harris, a judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Lorain County, to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law, as required by R.C. 2953.21(C). On February 5, 1988, appellee filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On March 24, 1988, the court of appeals granted the motion to dismiss, holding that the trial court had issued findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The cause is before this court on an appeal as of right.

Jose A. Carrion, pro se.

Gregory A. White, Pros. Atty., and Jonathan E. Rosenbaum, Vermilion, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The court of appeals held that the trial court did issue findings of fact and conclusions of law. We agree. The journal entry in question states:

"Request for hearing denied. Petition for post-conviction relief denied on the basis of res judicata; see State v. Wilcox (1984), 16 Ohio App.3d 273 [16 OBR 298, 475 N.E.2d 516]. All of the issues in Defendant's petition were or could have been raised in Defendant's direct appeal wherein the Court of Appeals found that the Defendant understood the consequences of his plea; see C.A. # 3958."

In State v. Lester (1975), 41 Ohio St.2d 51, 70 O.O.2d 150, 322 N.E.2d 656, paragraph two of the syllabus, we held that findings of fact and conclusions of law are mandatory under R.C. 2953.21 if the trial court dismisses the petition. In State v. Mapson (1982), 1 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 1 OBR 240, 242, 438 N.E.2d 910, 912, we stated:

" * * * The obvious reasons for requiring findings are ' * * * to apprise petitioner of the grounds for the judgment of the trial court and to enable the appellate courts to properly determine appeals in such a cause.' Jones v. State (1966), 8 Ohio St.2d 21, 22 [37 O.O.2d 357, 222 N.E.2d 313]. The exercise of findings and conclusions are essential in order to prosecute an appeal. Without...