Title: Stewart v. Corrigan

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Stewart v. Corrigan, 97 Ohio St.3d 80, 2002-Ohio-5316.] 
 
 
STEWART, APPELLANT, v. CORRIGAN, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Stewart v. Corrigan, 97 Ohio St.3d 80, 2002-Ohio-5316.] 
Mandamus sought to compel common pleas court judge to issue findings of fact 
and conclusions of law on relator’s second petition for postconviction 
relief — Court of appeals’ denial of writ affirmed. 
(No. 2002-0758 — Submitted August 27, 2002 — Decided October 16, 2002.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 80639. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
On December 18, 2001, appellant, Larry D. Stewart, filed a 
complaint in the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, requesting a writ of 
mandamus to compel appellee, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Judge 
Daniel O. Corrigan, to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law on Stewart’s 
second petition for postconviction relief.  Judge Corrigan filed an answer, and 
both parties filed motions for summary judgment. 
{¶2} 
On April 11, 2002, the court of appeals granted Judge Corrigan’s 
motion for summary judgment and denied the writ.  The court of appeals reasoned 
that Stewart was not entitled to the writ for the following reasons:  (1) Judge 
Corrigan had no duty to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law for 
successive postconviction relief petitions, (2) the complaint was not brought in the 
name of the state on the relation of Stewart, (3) Stewart did not comply with 
Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a), (4) Stewart did not comply with the filing requirements 
of R.C. 2969.25(A) and (C), and (5) Stewart failed to include the addresses of the 
parties in the caption of his complaint.  In addition, because Stewart did not 
comply with R.C. 2969.25, the court of appeals denied his claim of indigency and 
ordered him to pay the costs of the proceeding. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶3} 
In his appeal as of right, Stewart initially asserts that the court of 
appeals erred in denying the requested writ of mandamus because his second 
petition for postconviction relief raised claims that differed from those in his first 
petition.  Stewart’s assertion is meritless.  Even assuming that Stewart’s second 
petition raised different claims than his first petition, he is not entitled to a writ of 
mandamus because “the issuance of findings of fact and conclusions of law on his 
successive petition was within Judge Corrigan’s discretion, and a writ of 
mandamus will not issue to control judicial discretion, even if that discretion is 
abused.”  State ex rel. Carroll v. Corrigan (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 331, 332, 744 
N.E.2d 771. 
{¶4} 
Moreover, Stewart does not challenge all of the reasons given by 
the court of appeals in denying the writ.  Therefore, even if the court’s rationale 
on this ground was incorrect, its judgment denying the writ based on the grounds 
that Stewart does not contest on appeal was proper.  State ex rel. White v. Suster, 
95 Ohio St.3d 465, 2002-Ohio-2482, 768 N.E.2d 1178, ¶ 3. 
{¶5} 
Stewart additionally asserts that the court of appeals erred in 
assessing costs against him because R.C. 2969.25 is inapplicable to actions 
against trial court judges.  Stewart claims that a trial court judge is not a 
“government entity or employee” to whom R.C. 2969.25 is applicable.  For 
purposes of R.C. 2969.25, however, “employee” is defined as “an officer or 
employee of the state or of a political subdivision who is acting under color of 
state law.”  R.C. 2969.21(C).  As a judge of the common pleas court, Judge 
Corrigan unquestionably fits within this definition, and R.C. 2969.25 applies to 
Stewart’s mandamus action against him.  Therefore, the court of appeals did not 
err in holding Stewart to the requirements of that statute in commencing this 
action.  State ex rel. White v. Mack (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 572, 573, 757 N.E.2d 
353. 
January Term, 2002 
3 
{¶6} 
Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals committed no error in 
denying the requested writ of mandamus.  Accordingly, 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. 
__________________ 
 
Larry D. Stewart, pro se. 
__________________