State ex rel. Dillon v. Cottrill (Slip Opinion), 145 Ohio St. 3d 264

Randy Dillon was convicted of rape, attempted murder, kidnapping, and burglary and sentenced to life plus additional terms; convictions affirmed on direct appeal.
In December 2014 Dillon filed an untimely petition for postconviction relief in Muskingum County, acknowledging lateness but asserting he was "unavoidably prevented" from discovering evidence under R.C. 2953.21.
The trial judge (Judge Kelly J. Cottrill) denied the postconviction petition and did not issue findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Dillon sought a writ of mandamus in the Fifth District Court of Appeals to compel the judge to issue findings and conclusions; the court of appeals denied relief.
The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed, addressing whether a trial court has a legal duty to issue findings when dismissing an untimely postconviction petition and whether mandamus was appropriate given alternative remedies.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court must issue findings of fact and conclusions of law when dismissing an untimely postconviction petition	Dillon argued the court had to issue findings and conclusions regarding denial despite untimeliness, especially where he claimed he was unavoidably prevented from discovery	Judge Cottrill argued there is no legal duty to issue such findings when dismissing an untimely postconviction petition	Court held no duty exists; trial courts need not issue findings/conclusions when dismissing untimely postconviction petitions
Whether mandamus is available to compel findings when an adequate remedy at law exists	Dillon contended mandamus was needed because judge failed to explain denial	Cottrill and precedent argued appeal is an adequate remedy, precluding mandamus	Court held Dillon had an adequate remedy by appeal; mandamus was unavailable

State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55 (2012) (standards for mandamus: relator must show clear right, clear duty, and lack of adequate remedy)
State ex rel. Kimbrough v. Greene, 98 Ohio St.3d 116 (2002) (trial court not required to issue findings when dismissing untimely postconviction petitions)
State ex rel. Hach v. Summit Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 102 Ohio St.3d 75 (2004) (rule disallowing findings applies even when defendant claims he was unavoidably prevented from discovery)
State ex rel. Smith v. McGee, 144 Ohio St.3d 50 (2015) (appeal is an adequate remedy that precludes writs of mandamus or procedendo)
State ex rel. Ward v. Reed, 141 Ohio St.3d 50 (2014) (appeal constitutes an adequate remedy at law)