COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                           NO. 72831
STATE OF OHIO, EX REL.        :    PETITION FOR WRIT OF
STEPHEN J. ROE                :    MANDAMUS
                              :
               Relator        :    MOTION NO. 89276
                              :
          vs.                 :    JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
                              :
WILLIAM J. COYNE, JUDGE       :
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS         :
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO         :
                              :
               Respondent     :
                              :
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT
OF DECISION                   :    DECEMBER 11, 1997
JUDGMENT                      :    WRIT DENIED.
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION        :
APPEARANCES:
For Relator                   :    STEPHEN J. ROE, Pro Se
                                   No. 242-408
                                   Trumbull Correctional Inst.
                                   P. O. Box 901
                                   Leavittsburg, Ohio 44430
For Respondent                :    STEPHANIE TUBBS-JONES
                                   Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
                                   L. CHRISTOPHER FREY, Assistant
                                   Justice Center, Courts Tower
                                   1200 Ontario Street
                                   Cleveland, Ohio 44113
JAMES D. SWEENEY, C.J.:
     Relator requests that this court compel respondent judge  to
                               -2-
issue findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the
petition for postconviction  relief filed by relator in State  v.
Roe, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-271309  on
September 24, 1996.
     Respondent has filed a motion for summary judgment (Motion No.
87122) attached to which  is a copy of  the findings of fact  and
conclusions of law issued by respondent and received for filing by
the clerk  on September 10,  1997.  Relator  has not opposed  the
motion.   Respondent  argues that  this  action in  mandamus  is,
therefore, moot.  We agree.
     Accordingly, respondent's  motion  for summary  judgment  is
granted.  Respondent to pay costs.
     Writ denied.
.