State v. Long , 2011 Ohio 6381 ( 2011 )

[Cite as State v. Long, 2011-Ohio-6381.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-110139
TRIAL NO. B-0402803
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
O P I N I O N.
vs. :
JOHN W. LONG, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Appeal Dismissed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: December 14, 2011
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Scott M. Heenan,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee,
John W. Long, pro se.
Please note: We have removed this case from the accelerated calendar.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
Per Curiam.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant John W. Long presents on appeal a single
assignment of error challenging the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court’s entry
denying his application for DNA testing. Because the entry from which Long appeals
is not a final appealable order, we dismiss the appeal.
{¶2} Long was convicted of murder in 2004. He unsuccessfully challenged
his conviction in direct appeals to this court and to the Ohio Supreme Court. See
State v. Long (Oct. 26, 2005), 1st Dist. No. C-040643, appeal not accepted for
review, 108 Ohio St.3d 1489, 2006-Ohio-962, 843 N.E.2d 794.
{¶3} In December 2010, we remanded Long’s case to the common pleas
court for correction of his sentence upon our determination that the sentence was
void to the extent that it included an unauthorized term of postrelease control. See
State v. Long, 1st Dist. No. C-100285, 2010-Ohio-6115. In January 2011, the court
corrected the sentence.
{¶4} Meanwhile, in May 2010, Long had applied under R.C. 2953.71 et seq.
for DNA testing of biological evidence found at the crime scene. The common pleas
court denied the application, and this appeal followed.
{¶5} Whether a court accepts or rejects an application for DNA testing of
biological evidence, the court must memorialize its decision in “a judgment and
order * * * that includes * * * the reasons for the acceptance or rejection as applied
to the criteria and procedures set forth in [R.C.] 2953.71 to 2953.81.” See R.C.
2953.73(D) (emphasis added). A judgment entry accepting or rejecting an
application for DNA testing that does not include the statutorily mandated “reasons”
for the court’s decision is not a final appealable order. See State v. Thomas, 1st Dist.
2
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
No. C-050245, 2005-Ohio-6823, ¶14 (citing State v. Mapson [1982], 1 Ohio St.3d
217, 438 N.E.2d 910); accord State v. Lemons, 11th Dist. No. 2010-T-0008, 2010-
Ohio-1445, ¶5; State v. Hayden, 2nd Dist. No. 20747, 2005-Ohio-4025; State v.
Newell, 8th Dist. No. 85280, 2005-Ohio-2853, ¶6; State v. Hickman, 9th Dist. No.
22279, 2005-Ohio-472, ¶10. Cf. State v. Price, 165 Ohio App.3d 198, 2006-Ohio-
180, 845 N.E.2d 559, ¶12; State v. Smith, 8th Dist. No. 87937, 2007-Ohio-2369, ¶10
(remanding to the common pleas court to provide a detailed explanation of its
conclusion in its entry that DNA testing would not be outcome-determinative).
{¶6} The common pleas court entered its judgment “overrul[ing]” Long’s
“motion” for DNA testing upon “find[ing] the said motion not well taken.” Because
the entry rejecting Long’s application did not conform with R.C. 2953.73(D)’s
mandate that the entry include the court’s reasons for the rejection, the entry did not
constitute a final appealable order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
DINKELACKER, P.J., HILDEBRANDT and HENDON, JJ.
Please note:
The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.
3