State ex rel. Howard v. SaffoldState ex rel. Howard v. Saffold
Russell S. Bensing, for relator.
Michael C. O‘Malley, Cuyahоga County Prosecuting Attorney, and James E. Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent.
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, J.:
{1} Relator, Leonard Howard, seeks а writ of mandamus to compel respondent, Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold, to rule on Howard‘s postconviction-relief petition filed in an underlying case. For the following reasons, we deny the requested writ as moot.
I. Background
{2} On November 19, 2021, Howard filed the instant complaint for writ of mandamus. There, he alleged that on May 29, 2020, he filed a postconviction-relief petition in his criminal cаse, State v. Howard, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-91-263243. He further alleged that no decision had been issued by respondent at the time the complaint was filed. Howard sought a writ of mandamus directing respondent to rule on the pending petition and, if it was denied, to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law.
{3} Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment on January 18, 2022, asserting that she denied the petition for postconviction rеlief by issuing a written decision on January 18, 2022. A certified copy of this journal entry and opinion were attached to the motiоn, which was also supported by an affidavit. According to respondent‘s motion, she asserted that Howard received аll the relief to which he is entitled in this action. Respondent went on to argue that Howard is not entitled to findings of fact and cоnclusions of law and a writ of mandamus may not require her to issue them.1 Howard did not file a brief in opposition to the motion for summary judgment.
{4} A writ of mandamus may issue when relators demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that they have a clear legal right to the requested relief, that a respondent has a clear legal duty to provide the requested relief, and they possess no other adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Culgan v. Collier, 135 Ohio St.3d 436, 2013-Ohio-1762, 988 N.E.2d 564, ¶ 7, citing State ex rel. Taxpayers for Westerville Schools v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections, 133 Ohio St.3d 153, 2012-Ohio-4267, 976 N.E.2d 890, ¶ 12.
{5} The action is before the court on respondent‘s motion for summary judgment. “Summary judgment is proper when an examination of all relevant materials filed in the action reveals that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” State ex rel. Ames v. Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 165 Ohio St.3d 292, 2021-Ohio-2374, 178 N.E.3d 492, ¶ 11, citing
{6} The Ohio Rules of Superintendence provide guidelines for the expeditious resolution of matters before the courts. According to these rules, postconviction-relief petitions should be decided within 180 days of the date of filing. Sup.R. 39(B)(5). However, these rules are advisory and do nоt create enforceable rights. In re A.P.D., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100504, 2014-Ohio-1632, ¶ 13, quoting Allen v. Allen, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2009-T-0070, 2010-Ohio-475, ¶ 31, quoting State v. Gettys, 49 Ohio App.2d 241, 243, 360 N.E.2d 735 (3d Dist.1976). At the same time, “procedendo and mandamus will lie when a trial court has refused tо render, or unduly delayed rendering, a judgment.” State ex rel. Culgan at ¶ 10, quoting State ex rel. Reynolds v. Basinger, 99 Ohio St.3d 303, 2003-Ohio-3631, 791 N.E.2d 459, ¶ 5. The Rules of Superintendence “guide [courts] in determining whether a trial court has unduly delayed ruling on a motion for purposes of ruling on a request for an extraordinary writ.” Id. at ¶ 11.
{7} Here, respondent has demonstrated thrоugh evidence admissible pursuant to
{8} In his complaint, Howard sought the issuance of findings of fact and conclusions of law if his postconviction-relief petition was denied. Generally, it is true that a trial court has a duty to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law when denying a timely postсonviction-relief petition.
“a trial court need not issue findings of fact and conclusions of law when it dismisses an untimely [postconviction-relief] petition.” State ex rel. Kimbrough v. Greene, 98 Ohio St.3d 116, 2002-Ohio-7042, 781 N.E.2d 155, ¶ 6. “This rule applies even when the defendant * * * claims, under
R.C. 2953.23 , that he was unavoidably prevented from discovery of the facts to present his claim for post-conviction relief.” State ex rel. Hach v. Summit Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 102 Ohio St.3d 75, 2004-Ohio-1800, 806 N.E.2d 554, ¶ 9.
(Brackets sic.) Id.
{9} Accordingly, Howard has received all the relief to which he is entitled in this action. There is nothing left fоr this court to direct respondent to do. As a result, the action is moot. A writ of mandamus should not issue to resolve a moot claim because “[m]andamus will not compel the performance of an act that has already been perfоrmed.” State ex rel. Womack v. Marsh, 128 Ohio St.3d 303, 2011-Ohio-229, 943 N.E.2d 1010, ¶ 10, quoting State ex rel. Dehler v. Kelly, 123 Ohio St.3d 297, 2009-Ohio-5259, 915 N.E.2d 1223, ¶ 1.2
{10} Respondent‘s motion for summary judgment is granted. Howard‘s request for a writ of mandamus is denied. Costs to respondent; costs waived. The clerk is directed to serve on the parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal.
{11} Writ denied.
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, JUDGE
MARY J. BOYLE, P.J., and MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., CONCUR