Case Title: State ex rel. Ashipa v. Kubicki

Citation: 2007-Ohio-4563

Docket Number: 20070597

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2007-09-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Ashipa v. Kubicki, 114 Ohio St.3d 459, 2007-Ohio-4563.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. ASHIPA, APPELLANT, v. KUBICKI, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Ashipa v. Kubicki, 114 Ohio St.3d 459, 2007-Ohio-4563.] 
Writ of procedendo sought to compel trial court to issue findings of fact and 
conclusions of law — Court of appeals’ denial of writ affirmed. 
(No. 2007-0597 ─ Submitted August 14, 2007 ─ Decided September 19, 2007.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, 
No. C-070066. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing an action for a writ 
of procedendo to compel a common pleas court judge to issue findings of fact and 
conclusions of law on his denial of a petition for postconviction relief based on 
untimeliness.  Because the judge had no duty to do so, we affirm. 
{¶ 2} Appellant, Oludayo Ashipa, filed a petition in the Hamilton 
County Court of Common Pleas for postconviction relief.  Shortly thereafter, 
appellee, Judge Charles J. Kubicki Jr., denied the petition, holding “[It] is 
untimely and, even if it had been timely, raises issues that could have been raised 
during Ashipa’s direct appeal.” 
{¶ 3} Ashipa then filed an action in the Court of Appeals for Hamilton 
County for a writ of procedendo to compel Judge Kubicki to issue findings of fact 
and conclusions of law supporting his denial of Ashipa’s petition for 
postconviction relief.  Judge Kubicki filed a motion to dismiss.  The court of 
appeals granted the motion and dismissed Ashipa’s procedendo action. 
{¶ 4} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.  “[A] trial court 
need not issue findings of fact and conclusions of law when it dismisses an 
untimely [postconviction-relief] petition.”  State ex rel. Kimbrough v. Greene, 98 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Ohio St.3d 116, 2002-Ohio-7042, 781 N.E.2d 155, ¶ 6.  “This rule applies even 
when the defendant * * * claims, under R.C. 2953.23, that he was unavoidably 
prevented from discovery of the facts to present his claim for post-conviction 
relief.”  State ex rel. Hach v. Summit Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 102 Ohio 
St.3d 75, 2004-Ohio-1800, 806 N.E.2d 554, ¶ 9. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Oludayo Ashipa, pro se. 
_____________________