State ex rel. Reese v. Lisotto

Ohio Supreme Court September 20, 2000

State ex rel. Reese v. Lisotto, 90 Ohio St. 3d 77 (Ohio 2000)

734 N.E.2d 831

Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. Judge Lisotto had no duty to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law on Reese’s second and third petitions for postconviction relief. State ex rel. Fuller v. Sutula (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 301, 302, 714 N.E.2d 924, 924-925. And Judge Lisotto’s 1997 judgment entry denying Reese postconviction relief satisfied the requirement for findings of fact and conclusions of law. Gause v. Zaleski (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 614, 615, 710 N.E.2d 684, 686.1

Judgment affirmed.

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

. We also deny appellant’s motion to supplement the record.

Reference

Full Case Name: The State ex rel. Reese v. Lisotto, Judge
Cited By: 3 cases
Status: Published