State v. Harris, 88914 (8-2-2007)
State v. Harris, 88914 (8-2-2007)
Opinion of the Court
{¶ 2} The offense in this case occurred on October 30, 1988. The victim did not file a police report until January 6, 1989, however, when she discovered that she *Page 2 was pregnant. A paternity test was completed, the result of which showed that appellant was the father of the victim's baby.
{¶ 3} On September 20, 2006, appellant filed a motion to release the results of the paternity test. As cause, appellant stated that he believed the results would assist him in a postconviction challenge to his plea and conviction. The trial court denied appellant's motion, and in his sole assignment of error, he challenges that denial.
{¶ 4} The procedure to be followed in ruling on such a petition, is established by R.C.
{¶ 5} Therefore, because the postconviction statute does not make any provision for a petitioner to obtain discovery by means of court order prior to the preparation of a postconviction petition, the trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
*Page 3The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
*Page 1COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, P.J., and ANTHONY O. CALABRESE, JR., J., CONCUR
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.