Ohio Supreme Court, 1996

State ex rel. Luna v. McGimpsey

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided February 7, 1996 · Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright

74 Ohio St. 3d 485; 659 N.E.2d 1278

Cases that cite this one

18 later published cases cite this decision.

Gause v. Zaleski (Ohio 1999)
Gause v. Zaleski (Ohio 1999)
State ex rel. Scales v. Fuller (Ohio Ct. App. 2025)
State v. Krichbaum, 07 Ma 61 (6-15-2007) (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
State v. Ferrell, Unpublished Decision (6-16-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
State ex rel. Reynolds v. Basinger (Ohio 2003)
State ex rel. Mason v. Griffin (Ohio 2000)
State ex rel. Mason v. Griffin (Ohio 2000)
State v. Schlee, Unpublished Decision (12-17-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
State v. Matia, Unpublished Decision (10-14-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
State v. Sutula, Unpublished Decision (1-28-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
State ex rel. Carroll v. Corrigan (Ohio 1999)
State Ex Rel. Thomson v. Clerk, Court of Claims (Ohio 1997)
State ex rel. White v. Goldsberry (Ohio 1996)
Barr v. Sutula, 92860 (5-1-2009) (Ohio Ct. App. 2009)
State v. Hamilton, Unpublished Decision (5-7-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
State v. Friedland, Unpublished Decision (10-14-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
State ex rel. Luna v. McGimpsey (Ohio 1996)

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.

Luna asserts in his sole proposition of law that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his mandamus action. Luna claims that because the facts and legal arguments raised in his October 14, 1994 petition were not the same as those raised in his previous petition, he is entitled to findings of fact and conclusions of law.

“Since a trial court’s discretion under R.C. 2953.23(A) is not limited to entertaining successive petitions [for postconviction relief] based only on the same facts, its discretion to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law in dismissing a second or successive petition is similarly not limited.” State ex rel. Jennings v. Nurre (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 596, 598, 651 N.E.2d 1006, 1008. A writ of mandamus will not issue to control judicial discretion, even if that discretion is abused. Id., citing State ex rel. Keenan v. Calabrese (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 176, 180, 631 N.E.2d 119, 122; R.C. 2731.03. In addition, Luna possessed an adequate legal remedy via appeal of the judgment dismissing his postconviction relief petition. R.C. 2953.23(B). The court of appeals properly dismissed Luna’s mandamus action.

Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.

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