2002 OHIO 5316 - Stewart v. Corrigan

[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at

97 Ohio St.3d 80

.]




             STEWART, APPELLANT, v. CORRIGAN, JUDGE, APPELLEE.
                   [Cite as Stewart v. Corrigan,

2002-Ohio-5316

.]
Mandamus sought to compel common pleas court judge to issue findings of fact
and conclusions of law on relator’s second petition for postconviction
relief—Court of appeals’ denial of writ affirmed.
(No. 2002-0758—Submitted August 27, 2002—Decided October 16, 2002.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 80639.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶1} On December 18, 2001, appellant, Larry D. Stewart, filed a complaint
in the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, requesting a writ of mandamus to
compel appellee, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Judge Daniel O.
Corrigan, to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law on Stewart’s second
petition for postconviction relief. Judge Corrigan filed an answer, and both parties
filed motions for summary judgment.
{¶2} On April 11, 2002, the court of appeals granted Judge Corrigan’s
motion for summary judgment and denied the writ. The court of appeals reasoned
that Stewart was not entitled to the writ for the following reasons: (1) Judge
Corrigan had no duty to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law for successive
postconviction relief petitions, (2) the complaint was not brought in the name of the
state on the relation of Stewart, (3) Stewart did not comply with Loc.App.R.
45(B)(1)(a), (4) Stewart did not comply with the filing requirements of R.C.
2969.25(A) and (C), and (5) Stewart failed to include the addresses of the parties
in the caption of his complaint. In addition, because Stewart did not comply with
R.C. 2969.25, the court of appeals denied his claim of indigency and ordered him
to pay the costs of the proceeding.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶3} In his appeal as of right, Stewart initially asserts that the court of
appeals erred in denying the requested writ of mandamus because his second
petition for postconviction relief raised claims that differed from those in his first
petition. Stewart’s assertion is meritless. Even assuming that Stewart’s second
petition raised different claims than his first petition, he is not entitled to a writ of
mandamus because “the issuance of findings of fact and conclusions of law on his
successive petition was within Judge Corrigan’s discretion, and a writ of mandamus
will not issue to control judicial discretion, even if that discretion is abused.” State
ex rel. Carroll v. Corrigan (2001),

91 Ohio St.3d 331, 332

744 N.E.2d 771

.
        {¶4} Moreover, Stewart does not challenge all of the reasons given by the
court of appeals in denying the writ. Therefore, even if the court’s rationale on this
ground was incorrect, its judgment denying the writ based on the grounds that
Stewart does not contest on appeal was proper. State ex rel. White v. Suster,

95 Ohio St.3d 465

2002-Ohio-2482

768 N.E.2d 1178

, ¶ 3.
        {¶5} Stewart additionally asserts that the court of appeals erred in assessing
costs against him because R.C. 2969.25 is inapplicable to actions against trial court
judges. Stewart claims that a trial court judge is not a “government entity or
employee” to whom R.C. 2969.25 is applicable. For purposes of R.C. 2969.25,
however, “employee” is defined as “an officer or employee of the state or of a
political subdivision who is acting under color of state law.” R.C. 2969.21(C). As
a judge of the common pleas court, Judge Corrigan unquestionably fits within this
definition, and R.C. 2969.25 applies to Stewart’s mandamus action against him.
Therefore, the court of appeals did not err in holding Stewart to the requirements
of that statute in commencing this action. State ex rel. White v. Mack (2001),

93 Ohio St.3d 572, 573

757 N.E.2d 353

.
        {¶6} Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals committed no error in
denying the requested writ of mandamus. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of
the court of appeals.




                                           2
                             January Term, 2002




                                                   Judgment affirmed.
      MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
                            __________________
      Larry D. Stewart, pro se.
                            __________________




                                     3