COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 72381 : : STATE OF OHIO EX REL. : PETITION FOR WRIT OF JOHN SMITH : MANDAMUS : Relator : : MOTION NO. 84275 -vs- : : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO : : Respondent : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: JULY 3, 1997 JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Relator: For Respondent: JOHN SMITH, Pro Se STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, No. 302-706; Be.C.I. Cuyahoga County Prosecutor P. O. Box 540 ERIKA RITT, Assistant St. Clairsville, Ohio 43950 County Prosecutor Justice Center, Courts Tower 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 -2- JAMES D. SWEENEY, C.J.: On April 21, 1997, the relator, John Smith, commenced this mandamus action against the respondent, the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, to compel the court (1) to rule on his motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law for a post-conviction petition which he filed in the underlying case, State of Ohio v. John Smith, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Case No. CR-314903; (2) to order the defense counsel to turn over all the paperwork relating to the underlying case; (3) to release the minutes of the Grand Jury relating to the underlying case; and (4) to obtain a copy of the docket, motions for discovery and other records in the file of the underlying case. On May 20, 1997, the respondent, through the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor, moved for summary judgment on the grounds of mootness, because the court had ruled on the requests. On June 3, 1997, Mr. Smith filed his response to the motion for summary judgment: He has never received any of his requests. For the following reasons, this court grants the motion for summary judgment and dismisses this mandamus action. First, this action is dismissed for failure to comply with Loc. App. R. 8(B)(1), which requires that petitions in original actions "must be supported by an affidavit from the plaintiff or relator specifying the details of the claim." State ex rel. Wilson v. Calabrese (Jan. 18, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 70077, unreported. This petition demonstrates the wisdom of this rule. It is difficult to determine exactly what Mr. Smith seeks, because some requests are stated in the text of the petition and others seem to -3- be stated in the letters and motions attached to the petition. Moreover, the requests themselves seem inconsistent. The petition for mandamus seeks to compel the Public Defenders Office to turn over all paperwork, and the attached motion requests that prior defense counsel turn over his file to the public defender. The principles governing mandamus are well established. The writ may issue only if (1) the relator establishes a clear, legal right to the requested relief; (2) the respondent has a clear, legal duty to perform the requested relief; and (3) there is no adequate remedy at law. Mandamus may be used only to compel a court to exercise discretion. Mandamus may not control the exercise of that discretion, even if the discretion is grossly abused. State ex rel. Ney v. Niehaus (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 118, 515 N.E.2d 914. Attached to the respondent's motion for summary judgment are three signed, file-stamped journal entries. The first dismissed Mr. Smith's post-conviction petition on the grounds that the issues could have been raised on appeal and are thus, barred by res judicata and that Mr. Smith failed to submit any evidentiary quality documents to support his second claim. Although this entry is brief, under State ex rel. Carrion v. Harris (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 19, 530 N.E.2d 1330, such a concise entry is sufficient to fulfill the duty to make findings of fact and conclusions of law. Accordingly, the respondent has established that it has discharged its duty and that mandamus may not lie for this claim. The second journal entry from the underlying case states: -4- "Motion for all motions of discovery, minutes of the grand jury, and for files to be turned over to public defender by defense attorney is denied." This journal entry establishes that the respondent court has fulfilled its duty to rule on Mr. Smith's motion, filed December 26, 1996, attached as the first exhibit to his petition for mandamus and asking for all motions for discovery, the Grand Jury minutes and defense counsel's paperwork. Filing the motion submits the matter to the trial court's judgment and discretion; all the trial court is required to do then, is rule on the motion. All mandamus may do is compel the court to issue a ruling; it may not control what the ruling will or should be. The court's entry of March 10, 1997, fulfilled the duty and rendered this mandamus claim moot. The third attachment to the respondent's motion for summary judgment is a journal entry, dated October 25, 1996, in the underlying case which grants Mr. Smith's motion to release all documents pertaining to actions taken on his case. It further directs the clerk's office to send copies of the file to Mr. Smith. This journal entry again establishes that the respondent court has fulfilled its duty to rule on Mr. Smith's motions. That Mr. Smith has not yet received any of these documents does not mean that the respondent court has not fulfilled its duty or that Mr. Smith is entitled to mandamus against the respondent court. The court fulfilled its duty by ruling on the motions. Satisfaction for Mr. Smith now lies along other paths, e.g., appeal or requests to prior defense counsel or the clerk. -5- To the extent there is any confusion concerning what relief Mr. Smith seeks (e.g., whether Mr. Smith wants prior defense counsel to turn over its paperwork to him or to the public defender), this court in the exercise of its discretion declines to issue a writ of mandamus on such claims. A relator has the burden of pleading and proving his claim. State ex rel. Temke v. Outcalt (1977), 49 Ohio St.2d 189, 360 N.E.2d 701; State ex rel. Tommie Jerninghan v. Judge Patricia Anne Gaughan (Sept. 26, 1994), Cuyahoga App. No. 67787, unreported; and Cf. State ex rel. Jackson v. McFaul (1995) 73 Ohio St.3d 185, 652 N.E.2d 746. This burden is not sustained when the relator's pleadings and filings create doubt on what exactly is being requested. Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is granted, and the application for a writ of mandamus is denied and dismissed. Relator to pay costs. PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, J., CONCURS .