From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State, ex Rel. Workman, v. McGrath

Supreme Court of Ohio
Dec 21, 1988
40 Ohio St. 3d 91 (Ohio 1988)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

In Workman, the Supreme Court of Ohio also held specifically that "a trial court is not required to file findings of fact and conclusions of law when declining to entertain a second or successive petition for post-conviction [sic] relief which alleges the same grounds as earlier petitions."

Summary of this case from State v. Briscoe
See 3 Summaries

Opinion

No. 88-1454

Submitted November 14, 1988 —

Decided December 21, 1988.

Criminal law — Postconviction relief — R.C. 2953.23(A) — Court not required to file findings of fact and conclusions of law when declining a successive petition for postconviction relief.

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 55494.

Scott S. Workman, pro se. John T. Corrigan, prosecuting attorney, and George J. Sadd, for appellee.

This court concurs with the following entry of the court of appeals below:

"Relator Scott S. Workman's petition for [a] writ of mandamus is denied.

"Over the past eight years, relator has filed several post-conviction relief petitions alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. This action concerns a post-conviction relief petition filed by relator on February 10, 1987 and denied by respondent Judge McGrath on November 24, 1987. Relator seeks a writ of mandamus compelling respondent to file findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the dismissal of the petition.

"Under R.C. 2953.23(A), it is within the sound discretion of the trial court to entertain a second petition or successive petitions for similar relief based upon the same facts.

"Accordingly, we hold that a trial court is not required to file findings of fact and conclusions of law when declining to entertain a second or successive petition for post-conviction relief which alleges the same grounds as earlier petitions. See State v. Perdue (1981), 2 Ohio App.3d 285; State v. Knight (Aug. 20, 1981), Franklin App. No. 81AP-274, unreported.

"Writ denied."

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

MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT and H. BROWN, JJ., concur.

Summaries of

State, ex Rel. Workman, v. McGrath

Supreme Court of Ohio
Dec 21, 1988
40 Ohio St. 3d 91 (Ohio 1988)

In Workman, the Supreme Court of Ohio also held specifically that "a trial court is not required to file findings of fact and conclusions of law when declining to entertain a second or successive petition for post-conviction [sic] relief which alleges the same grounds as earlier petitions."

Summary of this case from State v. Briscoe

In Workman, the Supreme Court of Ohio additionally held "that the trial court is not required to file findings of fact and conclusions of law when declining to entertain a second or successive petition for post-conviction relief which alleges the same grounds as earlier petitions.

Summary of this case from State v. Coker

In State ex rel. Workman v. McGrath (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 91, the Supreme Court held that a trial court was not required to file findings of fact and conclusions of law when declining to entertain a second or successive petition for postconviction relief which alleged the same grounds as earlier petitions.

Summary of this case from State v. Schlee
Case details for

State, ex Rel. Workman, v. McGrath

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE, EX REL. WORKMAN, APPELLANT, v. MCGRATH, JUDGE, APPELLEE

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Dec 21, 1988

Citations

40 Ohio St. 3d 91 (Ohio 1988)
532 N.E.2d 105

Citing Cases

State ex Rel. Jennings v. Nurre

Judge Nurre contends that mandamus will not lie because findings of fact and conclusions of law are not…

State v. Steffen

The effect of the "good cause" requirement of R.C. 2953.23(A) is to place the entertainment of a successive…

13 Citing Cases