Title: Gause v. Zaleski

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Gause v. Zaleski, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 1999-Ohio-324.] 
 
 
 
 
 
GAUSE, APPELLANT, v. ZALESKI, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Gause v. Zaleski (1999), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Mandamus to compel common pleas court judge to file findings of fact and 
conclusions of law relating to the denials of relator’s postconviction relief 
petitions — Writ denied, when. 
(No. 99-75 — Submitted April 19, 1999 — Decided June 16, 1999.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lorain County, No. 98CA007171. 
 
In 1992, appellant, Vernon A. Gause, was convicted of abduction and 
aggravated trafficking in drugs and was sentenced to prison.  The court of appeals 
affirmed his conviction.  State v. Gause (May 5, 1993), Lorain App. No. 
92CA005444, unreported, 1993 WL 140445, motion for leave to file delayed 
appeal denied (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 1520, 649 N.E.2d 279. 
 
In October 1996 and March 1998, respectively, appellee, Lorain County 
Court of Common Pleas Judge Edward M. Zaleski, denied Gause’s first and 
second petitions for postconviction relief based on res judicata because the issues 
raised either were or could have been raised by Gause in his direct appeal.  In June 
1998, Gause filed a motion for postconviction relief, which he claimed to be a 
motion for “reconsideration” of Judge Zaleski’s March 1998 denial of his second 
petition for postconviction relief.  In July 1998, Judge Zaleski denied the motion. 
 
Gause then filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for Lorain County for a 
writ of mandamus to compel Judge Zaleski to file findings of fact and conclusions 
of law relating to his denials of Gause’s postconviction relief petitions.  Judge 
Zaleski filed a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss, and the court of appeals granted 
the motion as it related to Judge Zaleski’s judgments denying Gause’s first and 
second petitions for postconviction relief, finding that those judgments contained 
sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law.  The court of appeals converted 
 
 
2
Judge Zalseki’s dismissal motion into a motion for summary judgment concerning 
Gause’s mandamus claim relating to the denial of his third postconviction relief 
action, and the parties presented additional evidence.  The court of appeals granted 
the motion for summary judgment and denied the writ. 
 
This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. 
__________________ 
 
Vernon A. Gause, pro se. 
 
Gregory A. White, Lorain County Prosecuting Attorney, and Jonathan E. 
Rosenbaum, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  In his sole proposition of law, Gause asserts that his 
sentencing court erred in dismissing his postconviction relief petitions without first 
conducting evidentiary hearings.  For the following reasons, Gause’s assertion 
does not establish that the court of appeals erred in dismissing part of his 
mandamus action and denying the remainder. 
 
First, Gause had an adequate remedy at law by appeal to raise his claim that 
his sentencing court erred in not conducting evidentiary hearings before dismissing 
his postconviction relief petitions.  State ex rel. Luna v. McGimpsey (1996), 74 
Ohio St.3d 485, 486, 659 N.E.2d 1278, 1279; R.C. 2953.23(B). 
 
Second, Gause was not entitled to findings of fact and conclusions of law on 
Judge Zaleski’s judgments denying his first and second petitions for postconviction 
relief because those judgments satisfied the requirement for findings of fact and 
conclusions of law.  State ex rel. Carrion v. Harris (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 19, 19-
20, 530 N.E.2d 1330, 1330-1331. 
 
Finally, Gause was not entitled to findings of fact and conclusions of law on 
Judge Zaleski’s judgment denying his second and third postconviction relief 
actions because Judge Zaleski was not required to file findings of fact and 
 
 
3
conclusions of law on successive postconviction relief petitions.  State ex rel. 
Jennings v. Nurre (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 596, 597-598, 651 N.E.2d 1006, 1007-
1008; Luna, 74 Ohio St.3d at 486, 659 N.E.2d at 1278-1279. 
 
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.