King v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as King v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 2002-Ohio-4595.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 81636 DENNIS KING Relator vs. CUYAHOGA COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Respondent : : : : : : : : : : : JOURNAL ENTRY and OPINION CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Petition for Writ of Mandamus Motion No. 41008 JUDGMENT: DISMISSED DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: September 5, 2002 APPEARANCES: For Relator: Dennis King, pro se Inmate No. 385-006 P.O. Box 8107 Mansfield, Ohio 44901 For Respondent: William D. Mason Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 1200 Ontario Street, 9th Floor Cleveland, Ohio 44113 [Cite as King v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 2002-Ohio-4595.] COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J.: {¶1} Dennis King has filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus to have this court order the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law with regard to the denial of his motion to withdraw pleas of guilty in the underlying cases of State v. Dennis King, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case Nos. CR-353606, CR-354899, CR-379298, and CR-379298. For the following reasons, we sua sponte dismiss King s complaint. {¶2} This court has held that Crim.R. 32.1 does not require a trial court to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law following the denial of a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty. State ex rel. Kavlich v. Judge McMonagle (Jan. 27, 2000), Cuyahoga App. No. 76927; State v. Halliwell (Dec. 30, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 70369. Since the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas owes no duty to King to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law, King s complaint for a writ of mandamus fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and must be dismissed. See R.C. 2731.01; State ex rel. Yeager v. Cuyahoga County Adult Probation Dept. (Dec. 16, 1994), Cuyahoga App. No. 67398; State ex rel. Graves v. Callahan (Nov. 29, 1993), Cuyahoga App. No. 66400. See, also, State ex rel. Peeples v. Anderson (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 559, 653 N.E.2d 371. {¶3} King has also failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of R.C. 2969.25(A), that an inmate, when filing a 3 civil action against a governmental entity or employee, must also file an affidavit which contains a description of each civil action or appeal of a civil action that has been docketed in the previous five (5) years in either state or federal court. State ex rel. Akbar-El v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 94 Ohio St.3d 210, 2002-Ohio-475, 761 N.E.2d 624; State ex rel. Sherrills v. Franklin Cty. Clerk of Courts, 92 Ohio St.3d 402, 2001-Ohio-211, 750 N.E.2d 94. {¶4} Accordingly, we sua sponte dismiss King s complaint for a writ of mandamus. King to pay costs. It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Eighth District Court of Appeals, pursuant to Civ.R. 58(B), shall serve notice of this judgment and date of entry upon all parties. Dismissed. PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, P.J. CONCURS ANNE L. KILBANE, J. CONCURS COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY JUDGE [Cite as King v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 2002-Ohio-4595.]
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
