Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Richland
Petitioner BRETT ALLEN KRAFT PRO SE.
Respondent CHRISTOPHER L. BROWN.
JUDGES: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
Petitioner, Brett Kraft, has filed a Petition for Writ of
Mandamus seeking a writ of mandamus (1) requiring Respondent
to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law relative to
bond, (2) requiring Respondent to issue a final, appealable
order, and (3) requiring Respondent to rule an outstanding
motion filed by Petitioner. Respondent has filed a motion to
"For a writ of mandamus to issue, the relator must
establish a clear legal right to the relief prayed for; the
respondent must have a clear legal duty to perform the act;
and the relator must have no plain and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of the law." State ex rel. Widmer v.
Mohney, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2007-G-2776,
We find Petitioner has not properly brought this action. R.C.
2731.04 provides, "Application for the writ of mandamus
must be by petition, in the name of the state on the relation
of the person applying, and verified by affidavit."
Failure to comply with these requirements is grounds for
dismissal. Thorne v. State, 8th Dist. No. 85024,
2004-Ohio-6288; Maloney v. Court of Common Pleas of Allen
County, 173 Ohio St. 226, 181 N.E.2d 270 (1962).
Petitioner's claim Respondent is required to issue
findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of
Respondent's denial of bond and/or a bond hearing is
without merit. Civil Rule 52 governs findings of fact and
conclusions of law. Civil Rule 52 requires findings of fact
and conclusions of law only where "questions of fact are
tried by the court." The rule further states,
"Findings of fact and conclusions of law required by
this rule and by Civ.R. 41(B)(2) and Civ.R. 23(G)(3) are
unnecessary upon all other motions including those pursuant
to Civ.R. 12, Civ.R. 55 and Civ.R. 56."
Denial of a bond or bond hearing is not the same as a trial,
therefore, findings of fact and conclusion of law are not
required. Petitioner has provided no authority in support of
Petitioner also complains Respondent has not issued final
orders in Shelby Municipal Court Case Numbers TRD 1000062 and
TRD 1200159 because Respondent has not issued "a decree
in writing bearing his signature that Petitioner was found
guilty or was made liable for any fines." (Amended
Complaint, paragraph 1). We have reviewed the two entries
from these cases and find they do contain findings of guilt,
the sentence, and Respondent's signature. Therefore,
Respondent has issued a final order in these cases.
"Neither procedendo nor mandamus will compel the
performance of a duty that has already been performed."
State ex rel. Kreps v. Christiansen (2000), 88 ...