Ohio Supreme Court, 1986

State ex rel. Brown v. Court of Common Pleas

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided April 9, 1986 · Brown, Celebrezze, Douglas, Holmes, Locher, Sweeney, Wright

23 Ohio St. 3d 46; 491 N.E.2d 303; 23 Ohio B. 122; 1986 Ohio LEXIS 600

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision.

State v. Williams (Ohio Ct. App. 2022)
State ex rel. Hilliard v. Russo (Ohio Ct. App. 2016)
State v. McGinty, Unpublished Decision (6-25-2001) (Ohio Ct. App. 2001)
State v. Newman, Unpublished Decision (12-24-2001) (Ohio Ct. App. 2001)
Logue v. Fregiato (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
State Ex Rel. Tucker v. Aurelius, Unpublished Decision (5-13-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
State ex rel. Konoff v. Moon (Ohio 1997)
State ex rel. Konoff v. Moon (Ohio 1997)
State ex rel. Jennings v. Nurre (Ohio 1995)
State ex rel. Jennings v. Nurre (Ohio 1995)
State v. Combs (Ohio Ct. App. 1994)
State v. Riggins (Ohio Ct. App. 1993)
State v. Warden (Ohio Ct. App. 1986)
City of Shaker Heights v. Elder, Unpublished Decision (7-1-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
State v. Schlee, Unpublished Decision (12-17-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

Respondent contends that it is not required to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law when it determines that a petition for postconviction relief is without merit and was not supported by affidavits or other evidence and relies on State v. Jackson (1980), 64 Ohio St. 2d 107 [18 O.O.3d 348], and State v. Kapper (1983), 5 Ohio St. 3d 36.

Those cases do not support respondent’s contention. They merely define the conditions under which a court may dispose of a postconviction petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing.

In State v. Mapson (1982), 1 Ohio St. 3d 217, we held that a trial court is required to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law even upon a summary dismissal of a postconviction petition. Moreover, respondent has not demonstrated any particular facts which would justify departing from *47the rule set forth in Mapson. It has not even supplied a copy of relator’s petition to demonstrate its alleged deficiencies. In addition, it submits the transcripts of relator’s plea and sentencing hearings to support the motion to dismiss demonstrating that it relied on more than the deficiencies in relator’s petition when it denied relief.

Accordingly, the writ of mandamus is allowed on authority of State v. Mapson, supra.

Writ allowed.

Celebrezze, C.J., Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown, Douglas and Wright, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.