COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                           NO. 76114
STATE OF OHIO, EX REL.        :    PETITION FOR WRIT OF
LARRY D. STEWART              :    MANDAMUS
                              :
               Relator        :    MOTION NO. 5624
                              :
          vs.                 :    JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
                              :
KATHLEEN ANN SUTULA, JUDGE    :
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS         :
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO         :
                              :
               Respondent     :
                              :
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION   :    MAY 6, 1999
JUDGMENT                 :    WRIT DISMISSED.
APPEARANCES:
For Relator              :    LARRY STEWART, Pro Se
                              No. 342-560
                              2075 South Avon Belden Road
                              Grafton, Ohio 44044
For Respondent           :    WILLIAM D. MASON,
                                Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
                              GEORGE J. SADD, Assistant
                              Justice Center, Courts Tower
                              1200 Ontario Street
                              Cleveland, Ohio 44113
                               -2-
JAMES M. PORTER, A.J.:
     On March 9, 1999, the relator, Larry Stewart, commenced this
mandamus action against the respondent, the Cuyahoga County Common
Pleas Court,  to compel  the  issuance of  findings of  fact  and
conclusions of law for a postconviction relief petition which Mr.
Stewart filed  in the  underlying case,  State of  Ohio v.  Larry
Stewart,Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Case No. CR-340429.  On
March 22,  1999,  the  respondent, through  the  Cuyahoga  County
Prosecutor, moved for summary judgment on the grounds of mootness.
Attached  to the dispositive  motion was a  copy of a  certified,
signed journal entry, file-stamped March 10, 1999, containing the
requisite findings of fact and conclusions of law for Mr. Stewart's
petition. This attachment establishes that the court has fulfilled
its duty to issue the findings of fact and conclusions of law and
that Mr.  Stewart has  received the  relief he  has requested,  a
resolution of his postconviction petition.  Mr. Stewart never filed
a response to the dispositive motion.
     Accordingly, this  mandamus action is  moot, the motion  for
summary judgment is  granted, and this writ action is  dismissed.
Respondent to pay costs.
ANN DYKE, J., CONCURS.
.