State ex rel. Howard v. Saffold, 2022 Ohio 521

Relator Leonard Howard was convicted in 1991 and filed a petition for postconviction relief on May 29, 2020 in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-91-263243.
On November 19, 2021, Howard filed a mandamus complaint asking Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold to rule on the pending postconviction petition and, if denied, to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment attaching a certified journal entry and opinion showing she denied Howard’s petition on January 18, 2022 and argued Howard was not entitled to findings and conclusions.
Howard did not file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment.
The court found respondent had fulfilled her duty by issuing a written denial, that Howard’s petition appeared untimely or successive under R.C. 2953.23, and that findings of fact and conclusions of law are not required when a petition is dismissed as untimely.
The court concluded the mandamus action was moot and denied the requested writ.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mandamus should compel the trial judge to rule on Howard’s pending postconviction petition	Howard asserted the judge had unduly delayed and should be ordered to decide the petition	Saffold produced a journal entry showing she denied the petition, so there was no ongoing delay	Denied — judge issued a written decision; duty to proceed to judgment was satisfied
Whether the trial court must issue findings of fact and conclusions of law if the petition is denied	Howard sought findings and conclusions if petition denied	Saffold argued she was not required to issue findings because the petition was untimely/successive	Denied — when a petition is dismissed as untimely under R.C. 2953.23, findings are not required; mandamus will not compel them
Whether mandamus remains available given alternate remedies (appeal) and mootness	Howard sought extraordinary relief by mandamus	Respondent noted entry issued and appeal provides an adequate remedy if findings were required	Action is moot; mandamus will not compel acts already performed and appeal may supply remedy

State ex rel. Culgan v. Collier, 988 N.E.2d 564 (Ohio 2013) (mandamus/procedendo standards for undue delay)
State ex rel. Taxpayers for Westerville Schools v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections, 976 N.E.2d 890 (Ohio 2012) (mandamus elements)
State ex rel. Ames v. Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 178 N.E.3d 492 (Ohio 2021) (summary judgment standard in mandamus context)
State v. Henton, 50 N.E.3d 553 (Ohio 2016) (Rules of Superintendence guide delay analysis)
State ex rel. Reynolds v. Basinger, 791 N.E.2d 459 (Ohio 2003) (procedendo and mandamus for undue delay)
State ex rel. Hough v. Saffold, 960 N.E.2d 451 (Ohio 2012) (findings not required when petition is dismissed as untimely)
State ex rel. Ashipa v. Kubicki, 872 N.E.2d 1235 (Ohio 2007) (mandamus will not compel findings when petition is untimely)
State ex rel. Kimbrough v. Greene, 781 N.E.2d 155 (Ohio 2002) (trial court need not issue findings for untimely postconviction petitions)
State ex rel. Womack v. Marsh, 943 N.E.2d 1010 (Ohio 2011) (mandamus will not compel acts already performed)
State ex rel. Penland v. Dinkelacker, 164 N.E.3d 336 (Ohio 2020) (failure to issue findings is not jurisdictional; appeal may be adequate remedy)