State ex rel. Molton v. Matia

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as State ex rel. Molton v. Matia, 2003-Ohio-6630.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA No. 83661 STATE OF OHIO, EX REL., RONALD MOLTON Relator vs. DAVID T. MATIA, JUDGE Respondent : : : : : : : : : : ORIGINAL ACTION JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: DECEMBER 11, 2003 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: WRIT OF MANDAMUS JUDGMENT: Writ Denied. Motion No. 354515 Order No. 354822 APPEARANCES: For Relator: RONALD MOLTON, PRO SE Inmate No. A202-023 P.O. Box 788 Mansfield, Ohio 44901 For Respondent: WILLIAM D. MASON, ESQ. Cuyahoga County Prosecutor BY: KRISTEN LUSNIA, ESQ. Assistant County Prosecutor Justice Center - 9th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Colleen Conway Cooney, J. {¶1} On October 22, 2003, relator, Ronald Molton, commenced this mandamus action to compel Judge David T. Matia, Jr. to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law after denying Molton s motion to withdraw his guilty plea in State v. Molton, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-190261. On November 19, 2003, respondent, through the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor, filed a motion for summary judgment. For the following reason, we grant respondent s motion. {¶2} In order for this court to issue a writ of mandamus, a relator must establish that: (1) the relator possesses a clear legal right to the relief he seeks; (2) the respondent possesses a clear legal duty to perform the requested act; and (3) the relator possesses no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Manson v. Morris (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 440, 613 N.E.2d 232, citing, State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagle (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 28, 451 N.E.2d 225. {¶3} The denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1 does not require a trial court to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law. State ex rel. Chavis v. Griffin (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 50, 741 N.E.2d 130; State ex rel. Kavlich v. McMonagle (Jan. 27, 2000), Cuyahoga App. No. 76927; State v. Halliwell (Dec. 30, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 70369. In light of these holdings, we find that Molton does not possess a clear legal right to the requested relief, and Judge Matia does not possess a clear legal duty to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law. Accordingly, we grant the respondent s motion for summary judgment. Relator to bear costs. It is further ordered that the clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and date of entry pursuant to Civ.R. 58(B). {¶4} Writ denied. COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY JUDGE FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., P.J., CONCURS ANTHONY O. CALABRESE, JR., J., CONCURS

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.