State ex rel. Carrion v. Harris, No. 88-861
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM; MOYER |
| Citation | 530 N.E.2d 1330,40 Ohio St.3d 19 |
| Parties | The STATE, ex rel. CARRION, Appellant, v. HARRIS, Judge, Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. 88-861 |
| Decision Date | 30 November 1988 |
Page 19
v.
HARRIS, Judge, Appellee.
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 [530 N.E.2d 1331] 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Thomas, 2006 Ohio 6588 (Ohio App. 12/14/2006), No. 87666.
...of the trial court's rationale for its decision and to expedite proper appellate review. State ex rel. Carrion v. Harris (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 19, 530 N.E.2d 1330. In the case at bar, we find no evidence that the trial court did not review and consider the petition in its entirety. Therefor......
-
State v. Dewaine Poindexter, 91-LW-2550
...court and to enable the appellate courts to properly determine appeals in such a cause." State, ex rel. Carrion, v. Harris (1988), 40 Ohio St. 3d 19, 19, 530 N.E.2d 1330, 1330-31, quoting Jones v. State (1966), 8 Ohio St. 2d 21, 22, 222 N.E.2d 313, 314. Regardless of whether a hearing is he......
-
State v. Pickens, APPEAL NO. C-170204
...denying the petition. State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279, 291-292, 714 N.E.2d 905 (1999), citing State ex rel. Carrion v. Harris, 40 Ohio St.3d 19, 530 N.E.2d 1330 (1988), and State v. Clemmons, 58 Ohio App.3d 45, 46, 568 N.E.2d 705 (2d Dist.1989); State v. Powell, 90 Ohio App.3d 260, 263,......
-
State v. Combs, No. C-930498
...Id. The overriding goal is to allow the petitioner to prosecute a meaningful appeal. State ex rel. Carrion v. Harris (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 19, 19, 530 N.E.2d 1330, Page 110 On the only claims on which the trial court was required to examine the record to determine the substantive validity o......
-
State v. Thomas, 2006 Ohio 6588 (Ohio App. 12/14/2006), No. 87666.
...of the trial court's rationale for its decision and to expedite proper appellate review. State ex rel. Carrion v. Harris (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 19, 530 N.E.2d 1330. In the case at bar, we find no evidence that the trial court did not review and consider the petition in its entirety. Therefor......
-
State v. Dewaine Poindexter, 91-LW-2550
...court and to enable the appellate courts to properly determine appeals in such a cause." State, ex rel. Carrion, v. Harris (1988), 40 Ohio St. 3d 19, 19, 530 N.E.2d 1330, 1330-31, quoting Jones v. State (1966), 8 Ohio St. 2d 21, 22, 222 N.E.2d 313, 314. Regardless of whether a hearing is he......
-
State v. Pickens, APPEAL NO. C-170204
...denying the petition. State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279, 291-292, 714 N.E.2d 905 (1999), citing State ex rel. Carrion v. Harris, 40 Ohio St.3d 19, 530 N.E.2d 1330 (1988), and State v. Clemmons, 58 Ohio App.3d 45, 46, 568 N.E.2d 705 (2d Dist.1989); State v. Powell, 90 Ohio App.3d 260, 263,......
-
State v. Combs, No. C-930498
...Id. The overriding goal is to allow the petitioner to prosecute a meaningful appeal. State ex rel. Carrion v. Harris (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 19, 19, 530 N.E.2d 1330, Page 110 On the only claims on which the trial court was required to examine the record to determine the substantive validity o......