Title: State ex rel. James v. Coyne

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. James v. Coyne, 114 Ohio St.3d 45, 2007-Ohio-2716.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. JAMES, APPELLANT, v. COYNE, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. James v. Coyne, 114 Ohio St.3d 45, 2007-Ohio-2716.] 
Criminal law—Postconviction relief—Findings of fact and conclusions of law not 
required for dismissal of untimely petition. 
(No. 2007-0031 — Submitted May 23, 2007 — Decided June 20, 2007.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County,  
No. 88917, 2006-Ohio-6932. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
This is an appeal from a judgment denying a writ of mandamus to 
compel a judge to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the 
denial of an untimely postconviction-relief petition.  We affirm. 
{¶2} 
In 2005, appellant, Lamar James, was convicted of two counts of 
felonious assault, with firearm specifications, and was sentenced to eight years in 
prison.  On appeal, the court of appeals affirmed.  State v. James, Cuyahoga App. 
No. 86231, 2005-Ohio-6973. 
{¶3} 
In August 2006, James filed a petition for postconviction relief 
based on newly discovered evidence.  Appellee, Judge William J. Coyne of the 
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, denied the petition. 
{¶4} 
James then filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga 
County for a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Coyne to issue findings of fact 
and conclusions of law relating to his denial of James’s petition for postconviction 
relief.  Judge Coyne filed a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment.  The 
court of appeals granted Judge Coyne’s motion for summary judgment and denied 
the writ. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶5} 
The court of appeals properly denied the writ.  “[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 Ohio 
St.3d 116, 2002-Ohio-7042, 781 N.E.2d 155, ¶ 6. “This rule applies even when 
the defendant, as here, 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; State ex rel. Reynolds v. 
Basinger, 99 Ohio St.3d 303, 2003-Ohio-3631, 791 N.E.2d 459, ¶ 7.  Moreover, 
James failed to allege with sufficient specificity in his mandamus petition that he 
came within the newly-discovered-evidence exception to the time requirement of 
R.C. 2953.23.  Kimbrough, 98 Ohio St.3d 116, 2002-Ohio-7042, 781 N.E.2d 155, 
¶ 13. 
{¶6} 
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of 
appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Lamar James, pro se. 
 
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and T. Allan 
Regas, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
______________________