State v. Friedland, Unpublished Decision (10-14-1999)
Opinion
The underlying motions, as filed by the relator on March 30, 1999, represent successive petitions for postconviction relief. The respondent, however, possesses no clear legal duty to file findings of fact and conclusions of law with regard to successive petitions for postconviction relief. See State ex rel. White v.Goldsberry (1996),
It must also be noted that the relator has failed to comply with Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a), which mandates that a complaint in an original action "must be supported by an affidavit from the plaintiff or relator specifying the details of the claim". Failure to provide this court with a supporting affidavit warrants dismissal. State ex rel. Sherrills v. Court of CommonPleas (Dec. 1, 1995), Cuyahoga App. No. 69707, unreported.
Accordingly, we grant the respondent's motion for summary judgment. Costs to relator.
Writ denied.
ANN DYKE, J., CONCURS
___________________________________ JAMES M. PORTER ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State v. Friedland, Unpublished Decision (10-14-1999) (State v. Friedland, Unpublished Decision (10-14-1999)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.