Case Name: The State ex rel. Reese, Appellant, v. Lisotto, Judge, Appellee
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 2000-09-20
Citations: 90 Ohio St. 3d 77
Docket Number: No. 00-893
Parties: The State ex rel. Reese, Appellant, v. Lisotto, Judge, Appellee.
Judges: Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 90
Pages: 77–78

Head Matter:
The State ex rel. Reese, Appellant, v. Lisotto, Judge, Appellee.
[Cite as State ex rel. Reese v. Lisotto (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 77.]
(No. 00-893
Submitted July 25, 2000
Decided September 20, 2000.)
Joseph Reese, Jr., pro se.
Paul J. Gains, Mahoning County Prosecuting Attorney, and Janice T. O’Hallo-ran, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. Judge Lisotto had no duty to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law on Reese's second and third petitions for postconviction relief. State ex rel. Fuller v. Sutula (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 301, 302, 714 N.E.2d 924, 924-925. And Judge Lisotto's 1997 judgment entry denying Reese postconviction relief satisfied the requirement for findings of fact and conclusions of law. Gause v. Zaleski (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 614, 615, 710 N.E.2d 684, 686.
Judgment affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
. We also deny appellant's motion to supplement the record.