Title: State ex rel. Reynolds v. Basinger

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Reynolds v. Basinger, 99 Ohio St.3d 303, 2003-Ohio-3631.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. REYNOLDS, APPELLANT, v. BASINGER, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Reynolds v. Basinger, 99 Ohio St.3d 303, 2003-Ohio-
3631.] 
Writ of procedendo sought to compel common pleas court judge to issue 
findings of fact and conclusions of law after relator’s petition for 
postconviction relief was dismissed — Court of appeals’ dismissal of 
petition affirmed, when. 
(No. 2003-0337 — Submitted June 3, 2003 — Decided July 23, 2003.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Putnam County, No. 12-02-11. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
In 1999, appellant, Daniel J. Reynolds, was indicted on one count 
of felonious assault pursuant to R.C. 2903.11, with a gun specification.  Reynolds 
agreed to plead guilty to the charge of felonious assault in exchange for the state’s 
agreement to dismiss the gun specification and recommend a four-year term of 
incarceration.  The trial court accepted Reynolds’s plea but rejected the state’s 
sentencing recommendation and imposed a six-year sentence.  Reynolds did not 
appeal his conviction or sentence. 
{¶2} 
On July 15, 2002, Reynolds filed a petition for postconviction 
relief with the trial court alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel.  Reynolds 
claimed that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him as to the 
availability of a claim of self-defense.  The trial court denied Reynolds’s petition. 
{¶3} 
On November 13, 2002, Reynolds filed a petition for a writ of 
procedendo and an alternative request for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel 
Judge Randall Basinger, appellee, to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law, 
which he claims should have accompanied the judge’s dismissal of his petition for 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
postconviction relief.  The court of appeals dismissed the petition, finding that 
Reynolds had failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25 and that he had no clear legal 
right to have additional findings of fact and conclusions of law issued. 
{¶4} 
This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right.1 
{¶5} 
Reynolds originated this action in the court of appeals by filing a 
petition for a writ of procedendo and an alternative request for a writ of 
mandamus.  As a general matter, procedendo and mandamus will lie when a trial 
court has refused to render, or unduly delayed rendering, a judgment.  See State 
ex rel. Sherrills v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 
461, 462, 650 N.E.2d 899.  However, Reynolds is not entitled to the requested 
relief for the following reasons. 
{¶6} 
The trial judge was under no duty to issue findings of fact and 
conclusions of law in response to Reynolds’s petition for postconviction relief.  
R.C. 2953.21 governs initial petitions for postconviction relief that are filed 
timely.  Trial courts are required to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law 
only in regard to petitions that are filed pursuant to R.C. 2953.21(A)(2).  See R.C. 
2953.21(C) and State v. Lester (1975), 41 Ohio St.2d 51, 70 O.O.2d 150, 322 
N.E.2d 656, paragraph two of the syllabus. 
{¶7} 
Because Reynolds’s petition was filed beyond the 180-day period 
set forth in R.C. 2953.21(A)(2), it could have been considered only as an untimely 
petition for postconviction relief filed pursuant to R.C. 2953.23.  Unlike R.C. 
2953.21, R.C. 2953.23 does not require trial courts to issue findings of fact and 
conclusions of law.  In fact, we have consistently held that trial courts have no 
duty to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law on second and successive 
petitions for postconviction relief filed pursuant to R.C. 2953.23.  State ex rel. 
Carroll v. Corrigan (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 529, 530, 705 N.E.2d 1226; Gause v. 
                                                 
1. 
Appellee’s request for oral argument is denied. 
January Term, 2003 
3 
Zaleski (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 614, 615, 710 N.E.2d 684; State ex rel. White v. 
Goldsberry (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 271, 667 N.E.2d 391; State ex rel. Luna v. 
McGimpsey (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 485, 486, 659 N.E.2d 1278.  Since R.C. 
2953.23 does not distinguish between untimely petitions and second or successive 
petitions, the trial court was not required to make findings of fact and conclusions 
of law when dismissing Reynolds’s petition. 
{¶8} 
Additionally, neither a writ of procedendo nor a writ of mandamus 
will issue if an adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of law.  See State ex 
rel. Utley v. Abruzzo (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 203, 204, 17 OBR 439, 478 N.E.2d 
789, and State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm. (1967), 11 Ohio St.2d 141, 40 
O.O.2d 141, 228 N.E.2d 631, paragraph one of the syllabus.  Here, Reynolds had 
an alternative remedy by way of direct appeal of his postconviction-relief action 
to challenge the asserted failure to state findings of fact and conclusions of law. 
{¶9} 
Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Daniel J. Reynolds, pro se. 
 
Kurt Sahloff, Putnam County Prosecuting Attorney, and Scott E. Welch, 
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
__________________