COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                            NO. 72332
STATE OF OHIO, ex rel.        :
DONALD J. CALANDRA            :
                              :    PETITION FOR WRIT OF
     Relator                  :    MANDAMUS
                              :
     vs.                      :    MOTION NO. 84612
                              :
JUDGE RICHARD McMONAGLE       :    JOURAL ENTRY AND OPINION
                              :
     Respondent               :
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT
OF DECISION                   :    JULY 2, 1997
JUDGMENT                      :    WRIT GRANTED.
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION        :
APPEARANCES:
For relator       :           DONALD J. CALANDRA, pro se
                              Marion Correctional Institution
                              Post OFfice Box 57  M.C.I.
                              Marion, Ohio  43301-0057
For respondent    :           STEPHANIE TUBBS-JONES
                              Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
                              Justice Center, Courts Tower
                              1200 Ontario Street
                              Cleveland, Ohio  44113
                               -2-
JAMES D. SWEENEY, C.J.:
     Relator, Donald J. Calandra, seeks a writ of mandamus in order
to compel  the  respondent,  Judge Richard  McMonagle,  to  issue
findings of fact and conclusions of law with regard to a petition
for post-conviction relief that was filed in the underlying case of
State v. Calandra, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Case No. CR-283536.
No responsive pleading has been timely filed by the respondent.
     Ordinarily, a trial court is not required to file findings of
fact  and  conclusions  of law  when  entertaining  a  second  or
successive petition for  post-conviction relief that alleges  the
same issues or grounds as raised in previous petitions.  State ex
rel. Jennings v. Nurre (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 596; State v. Perdue
(1981),  2  Ohio App.3d  285.   On  June  16, 1993,  the  relator
previously filed a petition  for post-conviction relief that  was
denied  by the  respondent following  a hearing.   The  relator's
complaint for a writ of mandamus concerns a subsequent petition for
post-conviction  relief that was  filed on March  29, 1996.   The
subsequent petition for post-conviction relief concerns different
issues and grounds than those raised in the prior petition.  Thus,
the  trial court  is  required to  render  findings of  fact  and
conclusions of  law.   See  Sherrills v.  State (Oct.  2,  1990),
Cuyahoga App. No. 60294, unreported.
     Accordingly, we find that the relator's request for relief in
mandamus is well taken.  Within  thiryt days of the date of  this
entry, the  respondent is ordered to  issue findings of fact  and
                               -3-
conclusions of law with regard to the petition for post-conviction
relief that was filed by the relator on March 29, 1996.  Respondent
to pay costs.
.