COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                           NO. 73298
STATE OF OHIO, EX REL.        :    PETITION FOR WRIT OF
DONALD WILLIAMS               :    MANDAMUS
                              :
               Relator        :    MOTION NO. 89280
                              :
          vs.                 :    JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
                              :
KATHLEEN ANN SUTULA, JUDGE    :
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS         :
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO         :
                              :
               Respondent     :
                              :
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT
OF DECISION                   :    DECEMBER 11, 1997
JUDGMENT                      :    WRIT DISMISSED.
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION        :
APPEARANCES:
For Relator                   :    DONALD WILLIAMS, Pro Se
                                   No. 302-760
                                   P. O. Box 1812
                                   Marion, Ohio 43301-1812
For Respondent                :    STEPHANIE TUBBS-JONES
                                   Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
                                   DANIEL M. MARGOLIS, Assistant
                                   Justice Center, Courts Tower
                                   1200 Ontario Street
                                   Cleveland, Ohio 44113
JAMES D. SWEENEY, C.J.:
     On October 7, 1997, the relator commenced this mandamus action
against the respondents, Judge Kathleen Sutula and Stephanie Tubbs-
                               -2-
Jones, the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor, to compel a favorable ruling
with findings  of fact  and conclusions of  law for  a motion  to
withdraw guilty plea  which he filed on  August 25, 1997, in  the
underlying case, State of Ohio v. Donald Williams, Cuyahoga County
Common Pleas Court Case  No. CR-318022.  This motion to  withdraw
guilty plea argued that the two charges of which he was convicted,
attempted rape and gross  sexual imposition, were like  offenses;
thus, given that he  has completed his sentence for gross  sexual
imposition, he  should be  released, because  the attempted  rape
charge is void as duplicative.  Mr. Williams also asserted that he
is entitled  to a certificate  stating that he  has the right  to
monetary compensation for wrongful imprisonment.  On October  29,
1997, the respondents moved for summary judgment on the grounds of
mootness; attached  to the  dispositive motion  was a  copy of  a
certified journal entry, file stamped October 16, 1997, in  which
Judge  Sutula denied the  motion to withdraw  guilty plea on  the
grounds that she no  longer had jurisdiction to entertain such  a
motion. On November 20, 1997, Mr. Williams filed his opposition to
the motion  for  summary judgment,  arguing that  the  prosecutor
defaulted on responding to the motion to withdraw guilty plea and
that the trial judge had the duty to rule in his favor.   For the
following reasons,  this  court  grants the  motion  for  summary
judgment and dismisses this writ action.
     The requisites  for mandamus are  well established: (1)  the
relator must have a clear legal right to the requested relief, (2)
the  respondent must  have  a clear  legal  duty to  perform  the
                               -3-
requested relief, and (3) there must be no adequate remedy at law.
Additionally, although mandamus may be used to compel a court  to
exercise judgment or to discharge a function, it may not  control
judicial discretion, even if  that discretion is grossly  abused.
State ex rel. Ney v. Niehaus (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 118, 515 N.E.2d
914. Furthermore, mandamus is not a substitute for appeal.  State
ex rel. Keenan v. Calabrese (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 176, 631 N.E.2d
119; State ex rel. Daggett v. Gessman (1973), 34 Ohio St.2d 55, 295
N.E.2d 659; and State ex rel. Pressley v. Industrial Commission of
Ohio (1967), 11 Ohio St.2d 141, 228 N.E.2d 631, Paragraph Three of
the Syllabus.
     In the present case Judge Sutula fulfilled her duty completely
by adjudicating  Mr. Williams'  motion to  withdraw guilty  plea.
Although she had no duty is issue findings of fact and conclusions
of law, she concisely did so by explaining her reasoning.  State ex
rel. Williams v. Judge Frank D. Celebrezze, Jr. (July 22,  1996),
Cuyahoga App. No. 70530, unreported.  Cf. State ex rel. Carrion v.
Harris (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 19, 530 N.E.2d 1330.  To compel  the
respondent judge to rule on a motion to withdraw guilty plea in a
certain way would be to control judicial discretion.  Appeal of the
denial of the motion to withdraw guilty plea is the proper way to
contest such a ruling, not the extraordinary remedy of mandamus.
     Because Mr. Williams' other claims for mandamus are dependent
on the granting of the motion to withdraw guilty plea, those claims
for mandamus must fail.  Moreover, it is not at all certain  what
mandamus claims  are  sought  against the  prosecutor.    Because
                               -4-
mandamus will  not lie in doubtful  cases, those claims are  also
dismissed.  State ex rel. Connole v. Cleveland Board of Education
(1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 43, 621 N.E.2d 850.
     Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is granted  and
this writ action is dismissed.  Relator to pay costs.
.