COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
                        COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                            No. 82476
BARRY GAUNTT                  :         ORIGINAL ACTION
                              :
                              :         JOURNAL ENTRY
          Relator             :               AND
                              :            OPINION
    vs.                       :
                              :
KATHLEEN A. SUTULA            :
                              :
          Respondent          :
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION:            April 10, 2003
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS:          WRIT OF MANDAMUS
JUDGMENT:                          Writ DENIED.
                                   Motion No. 347616.
APPEARANCES:
For Relator:                       BARRY GAUNTT, Pro Se
                                   A256-654
                                   P.O. Box 1812
                                   Marion, Ohio   43301
For Respondent:                    WILLIAM D. MASON, ESQ.
                                   Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
                                   BY:  DIANE SMILANICK
                                   Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
                                   Justice Center - 9th Floor
                                   1200 Ontario Street
                                   Cleveland, Ohio 44113
                                 -2-
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.:
    On February 14, 2003, the relator, Barry Gauntt, commenced
this mandamus action to compel the respondent judge to issue
findings of fact and conclusions of law for a postconviction relief
petition, which Gauntt filed in July 2002, in the underlying case,
State of Ohio v. Barry Gauntt, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court
Case No. CR-269619.  On March 13, 2003, the respondent moved for
summary judgment on the grounds of mootness.       Attached to the
dispositive motion was a copy of a certified, signed and file-
stamped March 12, 2003 journal entry containing the findings of
fact and conclusions of law for Gauntt 's petition.    On March 28,
2003, Gauntt filed his opposition entitled, "Motion to Strike And
Dismiss The Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment." For the
following reasons, this court grants the respondent 's motion for
summary judgment and denies Gauntt's motion to strike.
    The judge's findings of fact and conclusions of law deny the
postconviction   petition   on   the    grounds of res judicata,
untimeliness and insufficient evidence.     Thus, the journal entry
establishes that the judge has fulfilled her duty to issue the
findings of fact and conclusions of law and that Gauntt has
received his requested relief, a resolution of his postconviction
petition.
    Gauntt's opposition to the motion for summary judgment is not
persuasive.  First, he argues that a clerical error is grounds to
                                -3-
strike the summary judgment motion.    The respondent, through the
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor, states in her brief that she granted
Gauntt's postconviction petition.    Second, Gauntt states in his
grievance that the respondent did not timely issue the findings of
fact and conclusions of law and that he had to file this mandamus
action as a catalyst in order to compel the respondent to finish
her duty.  However, neither of these points contests the fact that
the findings of fact and conclusions of law have been issued and
that this mandamus action is now moot.
     Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is granted, and
Gauntt's application for a writ is denied.      Respondent to pay
costs.  The clerk is directed to serve upon the parties notice of
this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. Civ.R. 58(B).
     Writ denied.
COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, P.J.,       AND
ANTHONY O. CALABRESE, JR., J., CONCUR.
                                     ______________________________
                                          SEAN C. GALLAGHER
                                               JUDGE
 
 
 
.