Case ID: ohio-st-3d_90/html/0077-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The State ex rel. Reese, Appellant, v. Lisotto, Judge, Appellee.
    [Cite as State ex rel. Reese v. Lisotto (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 77.]
    (No. 00-893
    Submitted July 25, 2000
    Decided September 20, 2000.)
    
      
      Joseph Reese, Jr., pro se.
    
    
      Paul J. Gains, Mahoning County Prosecuting Attorney, and Janice T. O’Hallo-ran, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent.
   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.

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.