State ex rel. Cook v. Forchione
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State ex rel. Cook v. Forchione, 2017-Ohio-270.] COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO, EX REL ANTHONY M. COOK Relator -vsJUDGE FRANK G. FORCHIONE STARK COUNTY COMMOM PLEAS COURT Respondent : : : : : : : : : : : : JUDGES: Hon., Patricia A. Delaney , PJ. Hon., Sheila G. Farmer, J. Hon., John W. Wise, J. Case No. 2016CA00136 OPINION CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Mandamus JUDGMENT: Granted DATE OF JUDGMENT: January 23, 2017 APPEARANCES: For Relator: Pro Se For Respondent: Anthony M. Cook Lebanon Correctional Inst. 3791 State Route 63 Lebanon, Ohio 45036 No Appearance Stark County, Case No. 16-136 2 Delaney, P.J. {¶1} Relator, Anthony Cook, has filed a complaint requesting this Court issue a writ of mandamus requiring the trial court to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of Respondent’s denial of Relator’s motion for post conviction relief. {¶2} To be entitled to extraordinary relief in mandamus, [a relator] must establish a clear legal right to the requested relief, a clear legal duty on the part of [respondent] to provide it, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55, 2012–Ohio–69, 960 N.E.2d 452, ¶ 6. {¶3} “Under R.C. 2953.21(C), findings of fact and conclusions of law are mandatory if the trial court dismisses a petition for post-conviction relief. State ex rel. Konoff v. Moon, 79 Ohio St.3d 211, 212, 1997–Ohio–398. Mandamus will lie to compel a trial court to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law when it dismisses a petition for post-conviction relief. Id.” State ex rel. Banks v. Court of Common Pleas for Franklin Cty., 2011-Ohio-5055, ¶ 16 (10th Dist. Franklin). {¶4} The transcript in Relator’s appeal was filed on August 3, 2015. The motion for post conviction relief was filed on September 28, 2015, therefore, it appears to have been a timely motion for post conviction relief. {¶5} “The rationale for requiring findings of fact and conclusions of law is to apprise the petitioner of the reasons for the trial court's judgment and to permit meaningful appellate review. State v. Mapson (1982), 1 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 1 OBR 240, 242, 438 N.E.2d 910, 912. If the entry of the trial court sufficiently apprises the petitioner of the reasons for the judgment and permits meaningful appellate review, a writ of mandamus will not be issued to compel findings of fact and conclusions of law. State ex rel. Carrion Stark County, Case No. 16-136 3 v. Harris (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 19, 19–20, 530 N.E.2d 1330, 1330–1331.” State ex rel. Konoff v. Moon, 79 Ohio St.3d 211, 1997-Ohio-398, 680 N.E.2d 989 (1997). {¶6} The entry denying the motion in this case does not contain any findings of fact or conclusions of law and does not apprise Relator of the reason for denying the motion. {¶7} Relator has established his clear legal right to have the trial court issue findings of fact and conclusions of law as well as the trial court’s corresponding duty to supply them. We also find Relator has no adequate remedy at law to obtain the requested relief, therefore, the writ of mandamus will issue. Respondent shall issue an order containing findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by R.C. 2953.21. By, Delaney, P.J. Farmer, J. and Wise, J. concur. [Cite as State ex rel. Cook v. Forchione, 2017-Ohio-270.]
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.
