Login
  • Bookmark
  • PDF
  • Share
  • CaseIQ

STATE EX REL. REESE v. LISOTTO

Supreme Court of Ohio.
Sep 20, 2000
Important Paras
Please sign up to view Important Paras.

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.

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

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.