Title: State ex rel. George v. Burnside

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. George v. Burnside, 118 Ohio St.3d 406, 2008-Ohio-2702.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. GEORGE, APPELLANT, v. BURNSIDE, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. George v. Burnside, 118 Ohio St.3d 406, 2008-Ohio-2702.] 
Appeal from judgment denying writ of procedendo to compel a common pleas 
court judge to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law — Court of 
appeals’ denial of writ affirmed. 
(No. 2008-0077 ─ Submitted June 4, 2008 — Decided June 11, 2008.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, 
No. 90531, 2007-Ohio-6632. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment denying a writ of procedendo to 
compel a common pleas court judge to issue findings of fact and conclusions of 
law on a petition for postconviction relief and to grant motions for a transcript of 
proceedings at state expense and for the appointment of counsel.  Because the 
judge has no duty to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law on a successive, 
untimely petition for postconviction relief and has discretion to rule on the 
motions, we affirm the judgment denying the writ. 
{¶ 2} Appellant, Anthony George, pleaded guilty to several crimes, 
including burglary and menacing by stalking, and was sentenced to prison.  
George filed a petition for postconviction relief, which was denied by appellee, 
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Judge Janet R. Burnside, because the 
petition was untimely. 
{¶ 3} George subsequently filed motions for leave to amend or 
supplement his pleadings, as well as a proposed amended and/or supplemental 
petition for postconviction relief.  Judge Burnside denied George’s motion for 
leave to amend or supplement his pleadings.  Judge Burnside also denied 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
George’s motions for preparation of a transcript of proceedings at state expense 
and for court-appointed counsel. 
{¶ 4} In October 2007, George filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals 
for Cuyahoga County for a writ of procedendo to compel Judge Burnside to issue 
findings of fact and conclusions of law on the denial of his petitions for 
postconviction relief and to grant his motions for a transcript at state expense and 
counsel.  Judge Burnside filed an answer and a motion for summary judgment.  
The court of appeals granted the motion for summary judgment and denied the 
writ. 
{¶ 5} In his appeal as of right, George asserts that the court of appeals 
erred in granting the writ.  For the following reasons, however, George’s assertion 
lacks merit. 
{¶ 6} First, Judge Burnside has no duty to issue findings of fact and 
conclusions of law on successive or untimely petitions for postconviction relief.  
State ex rel. Bunting v. Haas, 102 Ohio St.3d 161, 2004-Ohio-2055, 807 N.E.2d 
359, ¶ 11; State ex rel. Ashipa v. Kubicki, 114 Ohio St.3d 459, 2007-Ohio-4563, 
872 N.E.2d 1235, ¶ 4 (the rule that a trial court need not issue findings of fact and 
conclusions of law when it dismisses an untimely petition for postconviction 
relief applies even when the defendant claims he was unavoidably prevented from 
discovering the facts to allow a timely claim). 
{¶ 7} Second, insofar as George asserts that Judge Burnside abused her 
discretion by denying his motions for a transcript and appointment of counsel, 
procedendo cannot be used to control judicial discretion, even if that discretion is 
abused.  State ex rel. Non-Employees of Chateau Estates Resident Assn. v. 
Kessler, 107 Ohio St.3d 197, 2005-Ohio-6182, 837 N.E.2d 778, ¶ 17.  George has 
an adequate remedy by appeal to challenge the judge’s rulings on his motions.  “A 
writ of procedendo will not issue if an adequate remedy exists in the ordinary 
January Term, 2008 
3 
course of law.”  State ex rel. Neguse v. McIntosh, 115 Ohio St.3d 216, 2007-Ohio-
4788, 874 N.E.2d 772, ¶ 6. 
{¶ 8} Finally, George’s reliance on United States Supreme Court cases 
interpreting procedural default with regard to federal habeas corpus is misplaced.  
See State v. Keenan, Cuyahoga App. No. 87713, 2006-Ohio-6031, ¶ 12 (court 
declined to apply United States Supreme Court’s reasoning regarding procedural 
default of a federal habeas corpus claim, observing that it was “unaware of any 
authority adopting [the United States Supreme Court’s] reasoning under Ohio 
law”); State v. Pough, Trumbull App. No. 2003-T-0129, 2004-Ohio-3933, ¶ 14 
(federal procedural-default standard “only properly applies to federal habeas 
corpus petitions.  We are not aware of any Ohio case where it has been applied to 
untimely postconviction relief petitions under R.C. 2953.21”); cf. Casey v. 
Hudson, 113 Ohio St.3d 166, 2007-Ohio-1257, 863 N.E.2d 171, ¶ 3 (court held 
that the appellant’s reliance on federal habeas corpus cases was misplaced 
because the state writ of habeas corpus is not coextensive with the federal writ). 
{¶ 9} Therefore, the court of appeals correctly denied the requested 
extraordinary relief in procedendo, and we affirm the judgment denying the writ.1 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
____________________ 
 
Anthony George, pro se. 
 
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Diane 
Smilanick, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
______________________ 
                                                 
1.  We deny George’s motion to strike appellee’s brief.  Notwithstanding George’s contention, 
Judge Burnside did not prematurely file her brief in this appeal.