Ohio Supreme Court, 1997

State ex rel. Konoff v. Moon

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided July 16, 1997 · Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney

79 Ohio St. 3d 211; 680 N.E.2d 989

Cases that cite this one

22 later published cases cite this decision.

State ex rel. Thompson v. Spon (Ohio 1998)
State ex rel. Thompson v. Spon (Ohio 1998)
State ex rel. Cook v. Forchione (Ohio Ct. App. 2017)
State v. Huggins, Unpublished Decision (12-7-1998) (Ohio Ct. App. 1998)
State v. Steiner (Ohio Ct. App. 2017)
State ex rel. Gibson v. Sloan (Slip Opinion) (Ohio 2016)
State v. Fuller (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
State v. Rogers, Unpublished Decision (12-8-2006) (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)
State v. Houser, Unpublished Decision (12-17-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
State v. Gholston, Unpublished Decision (7-19-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
State v. Bren, Unpublished Decision (6-29-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
State Ex Rel. Carley v. Cleary, Unpublished Decision (5-13-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
State Ex Rel. Tucker v. Aurelius, Unpublished Decision (5-13-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
State ex rel. Ochs v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1999)
State ex rel. Ochs v. Indus. Comm. (Ohio 1999)
State v. Dudas, 2007-L-140 (6-27-2008) (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)
State v. Spencer, Unpublished Decision (1-23-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
State v. Coker, Unpublished Decision (3-14-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
State Ex Rel. Baker v. Commmon Pleas Court, Unpublished Decision (2-17-2000) (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)
State v. Yauger, Unpublished Decision (10-6-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
State v. Shingleton, Unpublished Decision (7-9-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
State ex rel. Konoff v. Moon (Ohio 1997)

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.

Konoff asserts that the court of appeals erred by denying the writ of mandamus. Konoff seeks to compel the common pleas court to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Findings of fact and conclusions of law are mandatory if the trial court dismisses a petition for postconviction relief. R.C. 2953.21(C); State v. Lester (1975), 41 Ohio St.2d 51, 70 O.O.2d 150, 322 N.E.2d 656, paragraph two of the syllabus. Mandamus will lie to compel a trial court to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law when it dismisses a petition for postconviction relief. State ex rel. Brown v. Court of Common Pleas of Coshocton Cty. (1986), 23 Ohio St.3d 46, 23 OBR 122, 491 N.E.2d 303.

The rationale for requiring findings of fact and conclusions of law is to apprise the petitioner of the reasons for the trial court’s judgment and to permit meaningful appellate review. State v. Mapson (1982), 1 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 1 OBR 240, 242, 438 N.E.2d 910, 912. If the entry of the trial court sufficiently apprises the petitioner of the reasons for the judgment and permits meaningful appellate review, a writ of mandamus will not be issued to compel findings of fact and conclusions of law. State ex rel. Carrion v. Harris (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 19, 19-20, 530 N.E.2d 1330, 1330-1331. Here, as the court of appeals concluded, the trial court entry was sufficiently adequate to apprise both Konoff and the court of appeals of the rationale for denying Konoffs petition. See, e.g., State v. Lawson (1995), 103 Ohio App.3d 307, 312-313, 659 N.E.2d 362, 366.

Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

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