Case Name: The State ex rel. Love, Appellant, v. Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office et al., Appellees
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1999-11-10
Citations: 87 Ohio St. 3d 158
Docket Number: No. 99-969
Parties: The State ex rel. Love, Appellant, v. Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office et al., Appellees.
Judges: Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 87
Pages: 158–159

Head Matter:
The State ex rel. Love, Appellant, v. Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office et al., Appellees.
[Cite as State ex rel. Love v. Cuyahoga Cty. Prosecutor’s Office (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 158.]
(No. 99-969
Submitted September 21, 1999
Decided November 10, 1999.)
Edsel Love, pro se.
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Diane Smilanick, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Love asserts that the court of appeals erred in denying the writ. For the following reasons, Love's contentions lack merit.
As the court of appeals concluded, Love cited no authority entitling him to the requested records. A writ of mandamus will not be issued to compel the general observance of unspecified laws. See, e.g., State ex rel. Kuczak v. Saffold (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 123, 125, 616 N.E.2d 230, 232. In fact, there is no requirement of civil discovery in postconviction proceedings. See State v. Spirko (1998), 127 Ohio App.3d 421, 429, 713 N.E.2d 60, 65, discretionary appeal not allowed (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 1430, 699 N.E.2d 946; State v. White (June 16, 1999), Summit App. No. 394938, unreported, 1999 WL 394938.
In addition, Love is not entitled to the requested records under the Crim.R. 16 criminal discovery provisions because his criminal trial concluded long before his requests. State ex rel. Flagner v. Arko (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 176, 177, 699 N.E.2d 62, 63; Crim.R. 16(D).
Finally, Love disclaimed any right to relief under R.C. 149.43. Flagner, 83 Ohio St.3d at 177, 699 N.E.2d at 63.
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.