State v. Young , 2012 Ohio 1732 ( 2012 )

[Cite as State v. Young, 2012-Ohio-1732.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-110274
TRIAL NO. B-0701436
Respondent-Appellee, :
vs. : O P I N I O N.
AARON E. YOUNG, :
Petitioner-Appellant. :
Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Appeal Dismissed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: April 20, 2012
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Paula E. Adams,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Respondent-Appellee,
Aaron E. Young, pro se.
Please note: We have removed this case from the accelerated calendar.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
Per Curiam.
{¶1} Petitioner-appellant Aaron E. Young presents on appeal a single
assignment of error challenging the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court’s judgment
denying his petition for postconviction relief. We dismiss the appeal because, without
findings of fact and conclusions of law, the entry denying his postconviction petition is
not a final appealable order.
{¶2} Young was convicted upon guilty pleas to multiple counts of aggravated
robbery and intimidation. In his direct appeal to this court, we affirmed his
convictions. See State v. Young, 1st Dist. No. C-100065 (Nov. 17, 2010).
{¶3} Young also challenged his convictions in a timely filed R.C. 2953.21
petition for postconviction relief. The common pleas court denied the petition, and this
appeal followed.
{¶4} When dismissing or denying a timely filed postconviction petition, a
common pleas court must make and file findings of fact and conclusions of law. See
R.C. 2953.21(C) and (G); State v. Lester, 41 Ohio St.2d 51, 322 N.E.2d 656 (1975),
paragraph two of the syllabus. An entry dismissing or denying a postconviction petition
“is incomplete and, thus, does not commence the running of the period for filing an
appeal therefrom” if the entry does not contain findings of fact and conclusions of law,
or if it does not otherwise apprise the petitioner of the basis for the decision or permit
meaningful appellate review. State v. Mapson, 1 Ohio St.3d 217, 218, 438 N.E.2d 910(1982); see State ex rel. Carrion v. Harris, 40 Ohio St.3d 19, 19-20, 530 N.E.2d 1330(1988). Accord State v. Gholston, 1st Dist. No. C-010789, 2002-Ohio-3674.
{¶5} The entry denying Young’s postconviction petition did not include
findings of fact and conclusions of law. Nor does the entry otherwise apprise Young of
2
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
the basis for the court’s decision or permit meaningful appellate review. Therefore, the
entry is not a final appealable order. Accordingly, we dismiss Young’s appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
HILDEBRANDT, P.J., DINKELACKER and FISCHER, JJ.
Please note:
The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.
3