COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                            NO. 74561
STATE OF OHIO, ex rel.        :
DANIEL CARROLL                :
                              :    PETITION FOR WRIT OF
     Relator                  :    MANDAMUS
                              :
     vs.                      :    MOTION NO. 95817
                              :
JUDGE DANIEL O. CORRIGAN      :    JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS         :
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO         :
                              :
     Respondent               :
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT
OF DECISION                   :    JULY 2, 1998
JUDGMENT                      :    WRIT DENIED.
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION        :
APPEARANCES:
For relator       :           DANIEL CARROLL, pro se
                              #A242-060
                              Ohio State Reformatory
                              Post Office Box 788
                              Mansfield, Ohio  44901-0788
For respondent    :           STEPHANIE TUBBS-JONES
                              Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
                              ERIKA RITT, Assistant
                              Justice Center, Courts Tower
                              1200 Ontario Street
                              Cleveland, Ohio  44113
                               -2-
PATRICIA A. BLACKMON,A.J.:
     Relator, Daniel Carroll, seeks a writ of mandamus in order to
compel the respondent, Judge Daniel O. Corrigan, to issue findings
of fact and conclusions of law with regard to a  motion to correct
illegal sentence,  which was filed on December 27, 1995 and denied
on  May 7,  1996, in  the underlying  case of  State v.  Carroll,
Cuyahoga County  Court of Common Pleas  Case No. CR-269172.   The
respondent has filed a motion for summary judgment, which we grant
for the following reasons.
     The realtor  argues  that his    motion to  correct  illegal
sentence   constitutes a  petition for  postconviction relief  as
defined by R.C. 2953.21, and thus the respondent possesses a duty
to make and file  findings of fact and  conclusions of law.   The
underlying motion, as filed by the relator on December 27,  1995,
represents a successive petition for postconviction relief.   The
respondent, however, possesses no duty to file findings of fact and
conclusions of law with regard to successive petitions for  post-
conviction relief.  See State ex rel. White v. Goldsberry (1996),
76 Ohio St.3d 217; State ex rel. Luna v. McGimpsey (1996), 74 Ohio
St.3d 485.   Since the respondent  possesses discretion to  issue
findings of fact and conclusions of law on a successive  petition
for postconviction relief and  the relator possesses an  adequate
remedy at law through a  direct appeal, mandamus will not lie  to
compel findings of  fact and conclusions of  law.  State ex  rel.
Jennings v. Nurre (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 596.
                               -3-
     Accordingly, we grant  the respondent's  motion for  summary
judgment.  Costs to relator.
     Writ denied.
JAMES M. PORTER, J., CONCURS
.