Title: State ex rel. Hough v. Saffold

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Hough v. Saffold, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-28.] 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2012-OHIO-28 
THE STATE EX REL. HOUGH, APPELLANT, v. SAFFOLD, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Hough v. Saffold,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-28.] 
Mandamus—Procedendo—Court has no duty to issue final, appealable order on 
denial of motion for recusal—Court has no duty to issue findings of fact 
and conclusions of law in denying untimely successive petition for 
postconviction relief—Writs denied. 
(No. 2011-1430—Submitted January 3, 2012—Decided January 10, 2012.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, 
No. 96468, 2011-Ohio-3477. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the claims 
of appellant, Terrance Hough, for writs of mandamus and procedendo to compel 
appellee, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Judge Shirley Strickland 
Saffold, to issue final, appealable orders on her October 7, 2010 denial of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Hough’s motion for the judge to recuse herself and his motion to supplement his 
petition for postconviction relief. 
{¶ 2} Hough is not entitled to a final, appealable order on the judge’s 
denial of his motion to recuse herself because a court of appeals lacks jurisdiction 
to review these decisions.  See Beer v. Griffith (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 440, 441-
442, 8 O.O.3d 438, 377 N.E.2d 775 (“Since only the Chief Justice or [the Chief’s] 
designee may hear disqualification matters, the Court of Appeals was without 
authority to pass upon disqualification or to void the judgment of the trial court 
upon that basis”); Goddard v. Children’s Hosp. Med. Ctr. (2000), 141 Ohio 
App.3d 467, 473, 751 N.E.2d 1062; State v. Ramos (1993), 88 Ohio App.3d 394, 
398, 623 N.E.2d 1336. 
{¶ 3} Moreover, as Judge Saffold now contends, the Chief Justice has 
since granted Hough’s affidavit to disqualify her, so his claim is now moot. 
{¶ 4} Finally, contrary to Hough’s assertions, Judge Saffold had no duty 
to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law in denying Hough’s motion to 
supplement 
his 
previously 
denied, 
untimely, 
successive 
petition 
for 
postconviction relief.  See State ex rel. James v. Coyne, 114 Ohio St.3d 45, 2007-
Ohio-2716, 867 N.E.2d 837, ¶ 5 (court has no duty to issue findings of fact and 
conclusions of law when it dismisses an untimely petition for postconviction 
relief); see also State v. Jones, Mahoning App. No. 07 MA 81, 2008-Ohio-1536, 
¶ 16-18 (amended petition for postconviction relief filed after court had ruled on 
petition held to be an improper successive petition). 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Terrance Hough, pro se. 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
 
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and James E. 
Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
______________________