State ex rel. Hough v. Saffold
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Ohio?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Ohio. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Terrance House filed complaints for writs of mandamus and procedendo to compel a court of common pleas judge to issue final, appealable orders on the judge's denial of Hough's motion for the judge to recuse herself and his motion to supplement his petition for postconviction relief. The court of appeals denied the claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Hough was not entitled to a final, appealable order on the judge's denial of his motion to recuse herself because the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to review those decisions; and (2) the judge had no duty to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law in denying Hough's motion to supplement his previously denied, untimely, successive petition for postconviction relief.
Download PDF
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Hough v. Saffold, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-28.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published. SLIP OPINION NO. 2012-OHIO-28 THE STATE EX REL. HOUGH, APPELLANT, v. SAFFOLD, JUDGE, APPELLEE. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Hough v. Saffold, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-28.] Mandamus Procedendo Court has no duty to issue final, appealable order on denial of motion for recusal Court has no duty to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law in denying untimely successive petition for postconviction relief Writs denied. (No. 2011-1430 Submitted January 3, 2012 Decided January 10, 2012.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 96468, 2011-Ohio-3477. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the claims of appellant, Terrance Hough, for writs of mandamus and procedendo to compel appellee, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold, to issue final, appealable orders on her October 7, 2010 denial of SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Hough s motion for the judge to recuse herself and his motion to supplement his petition for postconviction relief. {¶ 2} Hough is not entitled to a final, appealable order on the judge s denial of his motion to recuse herself because a court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to review these decisions. See Beer v. Griffith (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 440, 441442, 8 O.O.3d 438, 377 N.E.2d 775 ( Since only the Chief Justice or [the Chief s] designee may hear disqualification matters, the Court of Appeals was without authority to pass upon disqualification or to void the judgment of the trial court upon that basis ); Goddard v. Children s Hosp. Med. Ctr. (2000), 141 Ohio App.3d 467, 473, 751 N.E.2d 1062; State v. Ramos (1993), 88 Ohio App.3d 394, 398, 623 N.E.2d 1336. {¶ 3} Moreover, as Judge Saffold now contends, the Chief Justice has since granted Hough s affidavit to disqualify her, so his claim is now moot. {¶ 4} Finally, contrary to Hough s assertions, Judge Saffold had no duty to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law in denying Hough s motion to supplement his previously denied, untimely, successive petition for postconviction relief. See State ex rel. James v. Coyne, 114 Ohio St.3d 45, 2007Ohio-2716, 867 N.E.2d 837, ¶ 5 (court has no duty to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law when it dismisses an untimely petition for postconviction relief); see also State v. Jones, Mahoning App. No. 07 MA 81, 2008-Ohio-1536, ¶ 16-18 (amended petition for postconviction relief filed after court had ruled on petition held to be an improper successive petition). Judgment affirmed. O CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O DONNELL, LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. __________________ Terrance Hough, pro se. 2 January Term, 2012 William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and James E. Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. ______________________ 3
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.
