Case Title: State ex rel. Bunting v. Haas

Citation: 2004-Ohio-2055

Docket Number: 20032134

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2004-05-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Bunting v. Haas, 102 Ohio St.3d 161, 2004-Ohio-2055.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. BUNTING, APPELLANT, v. HAAS, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Bunting v. Haas, 102 Ohio St.3d 161, 2004-Ohio-2055.] 
Procedendo — Writ sought to compel common pleas court judge to rule on 
relator’s petition for post-conviction relief and to issue findings of fact 
and conclusions of law — Court of appeals’ dismissal of relator’s claim 
requesting a ruling on his February 3, 2003 petition for post-conviction 
relief reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings on that 
claim — Court of appeals’ dismissal of complaint requesting findings of 
fact and conclusions of law affirmed. 
(No. 2003-2134 — Submitted April 14, 2004 — Decided May 12, 2004.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Stark County, No. 2003CA00328. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
In August 2000, the Stark County Court of Common Pleas 
convicted appellant, Paul Edward Bunting, of one count of rape and six counts of 
sexual battery and sentenced him to prison.  On appeal, the court of appeals 
affirmed.  State v. Bunting (May 29, 2001), Stark App. No. 2000CA00286, 2001 
WL 698368.  The court of appeals granted Bunting’s App.R. 26(B) application to 
reopen his appeal to raise claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.  
Subsequently, the court of appeals rejected Bunting’s claims of error and again 
affirmed the judgment of the trial court.  State v. Bunting, Stark App. No. 
2000CA00286, 2002-Ohio-3594, 2002 WL 1483272, appeal not accepted for 
review, 97 Ohio St.3d 1469, 2002-Ohio-6347, 779 N.E.2d 236. 
{¶2} 
In November 2002, Bunting filed an application to adduce newly 
discovered evidence in the trial court.  The trial court construed Bunting’s 
application as a petition for post-conviction relief and dismissed it. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶3} 
On February 3, 2003, Bunting filed a document entitled 
“Amendment of the Application to Adduce Newly Discovered Evidence 
presented as a ‘Petition for Post-Conviction Relief Remedy.’ ”  On May 14, 2003, 
Bunting moved for the appointment of an expert assistant for his post-conviction-
relief claims.  Appellee, Stark County Common Pleas Court Judge John G. Haas, 
denied that motion on June 3, 2003.  On June 25, 2003, after the state failed to 
respond to his February 3, 2003 post-conviction-relief petition, Bunting moved 
for a ruling on the petition. 
{¶4} 
On September 24, 2003, after Judge Haas failed to rule on the post-
conviction-relief petition, Bunting filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for 
Stark County for a writ of procedendo to compel Judge Haas to rule on his 
petition and to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law.  Judge Haas 
responded to the complaint.  In his response, Judge Haas conceded that he had not 
ruled on Bunting’s February 3, 2003 petition for post-conviction relief.  On 
October 31, 2003, the court of appeals dismissed Bunting’s complaint for a writ 
of procedendo. 
{¶5} 
We reverse in part the judgment of the court of appeals.  Crim.R. 
35(C) requires trial courts to rule on petitions for post-conviction relief within 180 
days of filing: 
{¶6} 
“The trial court shall file its ruling upon a petition for post-
conviction relief, including findings of fact and conclusions of law if required by 
law, not later than one hundred eighty days after the petition is filed.” 
{¶7} 
Similarly, we have granted extraordinary relief to compel a trial 
court judge to rule on a post-conviction-relief petition that had been pending for 
12 months because “prompt action on such petitions should be taken by the court” 
and the 12-month delay in that case was excessive.  State ex rel. Turpin v. Stark 
Cty. Court of Common Pleas (1966), 8 Ohio St.2d 1, 2, 37 O.O.2d 40, 220 N.E.2d 
670. 
January Term, 2004 
3 
{¶8} 
“ ‘A writ of procedendo is appropriate when a court has either 
refused to render a judgment or has unnecessarily delayed proceeding to 
judgment.’ ”  State ex rel. R.W. Sidley, Inc. v. Crawford, 100 Ohio St.3d 113, 
2003-Ohio-5101, 796 N.E.2d 929, ¶ 16, quoting State ex rel. Weiss v. Hoover 
(1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 530, 532, 705 N.E.2d 1227. 
{¶9} 
From the allegations of Bunting’s complaint, his procedendo claim 
may have merit.  His trial court judge has not yet ruled on his petition although it 
is now over one year after Bunting filed it.  Nor does the record reflect reasons for 
the delay.  As in Turpin, without any evidence justifying the passage of time 
without a ruling, this delay appears excessive.  And procedendo is the appropriate 
remedy to rectify a violation of the 180-day requirement of Crim.R. 35(C).  Cf. In 
re Davis (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 520, 523-524, 705 N.E.2d 1219 (procedendo is the 
proper remedy for a violation of the R.C. 2151.35[B][3] requirement that juvenile 
courts enter judgment within seven days of a dispositional hearing in a permanent 
custody case). 
{¶10} This case is consequently distinguishable from those cases in 
which we have denied writs of procedendo to compel trial courts to rule on post-
conviction-relief petitions.  Cf. State ex rel. Sherrills v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of 
Common Pleas (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 461, 650 N.E.2d 899 (post-conviction-relief 
petition and motions pending for only two to three weeks when complaint for writ 
of procedendo filed); State ex rel. Dehler v. Sutula (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 33, 656 
N.E.2d 332 (no delay in ruling on post-conviction-relief petition when relator had 
filed affidavit of disqualification against judge). 
{¶11} Therefore, the court erred in dismissing Bunting’s procedendo 
complaint insofar as he requested a ruling on his February 3, 2003 petition.  But 
the court did not err in dismissing his complaint to the extent Bunting requested 
the issuance of findings of fact and conclusions of law.  Judge Haas has no duty to 
issue findings of fact and conclusions of law on successive or untimely petitions 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
for post-conviction relief.  See Gause v. Zaleski (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 614, 615, 
710 N.E.2d 684; State ex rel. Reynolds v. Basinger, 99 Ohio St.3d 303, 2003-
Ohio-3631, 791 N.E.2d 459. 
{¶12} Based on the foregoing, we reverse the judgment of the court of 
appeals insofar as the court erroneously dismissed Bunting’s procedendo claim 
requesting a ruling on his February 3, 2003 petition for post-conviction relief and 
remand the cause for further proceedings on that claim.  We affirm the remainder 
of the court of appeals’ judgment. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Paul Edward Bunting, pro se. 
 
John D. Ferrero Jr., Stark County Prosecuting Attorney, and Ronald Mark 
Caldwell, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
__________________