King v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court, Common Pleas, Unpublished Decision (9-5-2002)
King v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court, Common Pleas, Unpublished Decision (9-5-2002)
Opinion of the Court
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.
King has also failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of R.C.
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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.