Ohio Supreme Court, 1999

Gause v. Zaleski

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided June 16, 1999 · Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney

85 Ohio St. 3d 614; 710 N.E.2d 684

Cases that cite this one

22 later published cases cite this decision.

State v. Jones (Ohio Ct. App. 2014)
State ex rel. Parker v. Russo (Ohio 2012)
State v. Bronston (Ohio Ct. App. 2012)
Barr v. Sutula, 92860 (5-1-2009) (Ohio Ct. App. 2009)
State v. Krichbaum, 07 Ma 61 (6-15-2007) (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
State v. Briscoe, Unpublished Decision (2-5-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
State ex rel. Hach v. Summit County Court of Common Pleas (Ohio 2004)
State ex rel. Bunting v. Haas (Ohio 2004)
State ex rel. Reynolds v. Basinger (Ohio 2003)
Stewart v. Corrigan, Unpublished Decision (4-11-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
State Ex Rel. Mubashshir v. Callahan, Unpublished Decision (4-6-2000) (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)
State ex rel. Reese v. Lisotto (Ohio 2000)
State ex rel. Reese v. Lisotto (Ohio 2000)
State v. Matia, Unpublished Decision (10-14-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
State ex rel. Warren v. Boggins (Ohio 1999)
State ex rel. Warren v. Boggins (Ohio 1999)
State v. Jones (Ohio Ct. App. 2011)
State Ex Rel. George v. Burnside, Unpublished Decision (12-11-2007) (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
State v. Coker, Unpublished Decision (3-14-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
State v. Massey, Unpublished Decision (11-05-2001) (Ohio Ct. App. 2001)
State Ex Rel. Reese v. Lisotto, Unpublished Decision (5-5-2000) (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)
Gause v. Zaleski (Ohio 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.

In his sole proposition of law, Gause asserts that his sentencing court erred in dismissing his postconviction relief petitions without first conducting evidentiary hearings. For the following reasons, Gause’s assertion does not establish that the court of appeals erred in dismissing part of his mandamus action and denying the remainder.

First, Gause had an adequate remedy at law by appeal to raise his claim that his sentencing court erred in not conducting evidentiary hearings before dismissing his postconviction relief petitions. State ex rel Luna v. McGimpsey (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 485, 486, 659 N.E.2d 1278, 1279; R.C. 2953.23(B).

Second, Gause was not entitled to findings of fact and conclusions of law on Judge Zaleski’s judgments denying his first and second petitions for postconviction relief because those judgments satisfied the requirement for 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.

Finally, Gause was not entitled to findings of fact and conclusions of law on Judge Zaleski’s judgment denying his second and third postconviction relief actions because Judge Zaleski was not required to file findings of fact and conclusions of law on successive postconviction relief petitions. State ex rel. Jennings v. Nurre (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 596, 597-598, 651 N.E.2d 1006, 1007-1008; Luna, 74 Ohio St.3d at 486, 659 N.E.2d at 1278-1279.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

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.