State ex rel. Reese v. Lisotto - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

[Cite as State ex rel. Reese v. Lisotto, 90 Ohio St.3d 77, 2000-Ohio-28.]

THE STATE EX REL. REESE, APPELLANT, v. LISOTTO, JUDGE, APPELLEE.
[Cite as State ex rel. Reese v. Lisotto (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 77.]
Mandamus sought to compel common pleas court judge to issue findings of fact
and conclusions of law for two rulings denying relator's postconviction
petitions -- Dismissal of complaint affirmed.
(No. 00-893 -- Submitted July 25, 2000 -- Decided September 20, 2000.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Mahoning County, No. 00CA48.

In 1988, relator, Joseph Reese, Jr., was convicted of murder and an
accompanying firearm specification and sentenced to an indefinite prison term of
fifteen years to life. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed. State v. Reese (June
21, 1989), Mahoning App. No. 88CA104, unreported, 1989 WL 71076, appeal
dismissed, State v. Reese (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 708, 544 N.E.2d 696.

In 1988, the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas denied an initial
petition for postconviction relief filed by Reese.

In September 1997, Reese filed a second postconviction action in the
common pleas court to vacate his judgment of conviction and sentence. Reese
claimed that the judgment was void because the grand jury votes for his indictment
were not filed. Appellee, Judge Robert Lisotto, entered a judgment denying the
motion. In the judgment, Judge Lisotto specified the pertinent facts as well as the

legal conclusions mandating denial of Reese's motion. On appeal, the court of
appeals found Reese's claims to be meritless and affirmed Judge Lisotto's
judgment. State v. Reese (June 2, 1999), Mahoning App. No. 98CA33, unreported,
1999 WL 397917, appeal dismissed, State v. Reese (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 1463,
715 N.E.2d 566.

In February 2000, Reese filed a third petition for postconviction relief in the
common pleas court. Judge Lisotto dismissed the petition.

In March 2000, Reese filed a complaint in the court of appeals for a writ of
mandamus to compel Judge Lisotto to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law
for his 1997 and 2000 rulings denying his postconviction relief petitions. The
court of appeals granted Judge Lisotto's motion to dismiss and dismissed Reese's
mandamus action.

This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right.
__________________

Joseph Reese, Jr., pro se.

Paul J. Gains, Mahoning County Prosecuting Attorney, and Janice T.
O'Halloran, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent.
__________________

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

2

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, 686.1
Judgment affirmed.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
FOOTNOTE:

1.
We also deny appellant's motion to supplement the record.

3