COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                           NO. 72895
STATE OF OHIO, EX REL.        :    PETITION FOR WRIT OF
ROBERT E. LEE                 :    MANDAMUS
                              :
               Relator        :    MOTION NO. 89281
                              :
          vs.                 :    JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
                              :
TIMOTHY MCCORMICK, 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                   :    ROBERT E. LEE, Pro Se
                                   No. 314-386
                                   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.
Lee, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-323821  on
September 20, 1996.
     Respondent has filed a motion for summary judgmen (Motion No.
86447) 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 August 19, 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.
.