Case Name: The State ex rel. Collins, Appellant, v. Pokorny, Judge, Appellee
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1999-07-07
Citations: 86 Ohio St. 3d 70
Docket Number: No. 99-74
Parties: The State ex rel. Collins, Appellant, v. Pokorny, 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: 86
Pages: 70–71

Head Matter:
The State ex rel. Collins, Appellant, v. Pokorny, Judge, Appellee.
[Cite as State ex rel. Collins v. Pokorny (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 70.]
(No. 99-74
Submitted May 4, 1999
Decided July 7, 1999.)
Larry Collins, pro se.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Collins asserts in his propositions of law that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his procedendo action. For the following reasons, Collins's assertion lacks merit.
As the court of appeals correctly held, Judge Pokorny had no duty to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law when he denied Collins's Crim.R. 33 motion for a new trial. State v. Girts (1997), 121 Ohio App.3d 539, 565, 700 N.E.2d 395, 412; see, generally, State ex rel. Grove v. Nadel (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 325, 326, 691 N.E.2d 275, 276.
In addition, res judicata barred Collins from raising the same issue that he had raised in his previous mandamus action. Russell v. Mitchell (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 328, 329, 703 N.E.2d 1249.
Based on the foregoing, 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.