State v. Hayes ( 2024 )

[Cite as State v. Hayes, 2024-Ohio-1826.]
COURT OF APPEALS
MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:
Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. John W. Wise, J.
Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
-vs-
Case No. CT2023-0044
BERNARD L. HAYES, JR.
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Muskingum County Court
of Common Pleas, Case No. CR2021-
0664
JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: May 9, 2024
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
BERNARD L. HAYES, JR. RON WELCH
#A 797-924 Muskingum County Prosecuting Attorney
Belmont Correctional Institute
P.O. Box 540 JOSEPH A. PALMER
St. Clairsville, Ohio 43950 Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
Muskingum County, Ohio
27 North 5th Street
Zanesville, Ohio 43710
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2023-0044 2
Hoffman, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Bernard L. Hayes, Jr. appeals the judgment entered
by the Muskingum County Common Pleas Court dismissing his petition for postconviction
relief. Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
{¶2} Following jury trial in the Muskingum County Common Pleas Court,
Appellant was convicted of felonious assault on a peace officer (R.C. 2903.11(A)(1)), and
was sentenced to a term of incarceration of eleven to sixteen and one-half years. He
appealed to this Court, and we affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence. State
v. Hayes, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2022-0021, 2023-Ohio-1008.
{¶3} Appellant filed a timely petition for postconviction relief in the trial court,
arguing the State improperly withheld evidence in discovery, and counsel was ineffective
for failing to properly investigate the case prior to trial. The trial court summarily dismissed
the petition without findings of fact and conclusions of law.
{¶4} Appellant filed a notice of appeal to this Court. The State moved to dismiss
on the basis a judgment dismissing a petition for postconviction relief without findings of
fact and conclusions of law is not a final appealable order. This Court granted the motion,
dismissing the instant appeal. Appellant appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court. The
Supreme Court accepted the appeal and summarily reversed this Court’s dismissal on
the authority of State ex rel. Penland v. Dinkelacker, 162 Ohio St. 3d 59, 2020-Ohio-3774,
1 A rendition of the facts is unnecessary to our resolution of the issues raised on appeal, and can be found
in this Court’s opinion on direct appeal, State v. Hayes, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2022-0021, 2023-Ohio-
1008.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2023-0044 3
164 N.E.3d 336, and remanded the case to this Court for a decision on the merits. This
Court reopened the appeal.
{¶5} It is from the June 5, 2023 judgment of the trial court Appellant prosecutes
his appeal, assigning as error:
IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN THE TRIAL COURT
FAILED TO ISSUE THE REQUIRED FACTS FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PURSUANT ORC ANN. 2953.21(D).
{¶6} In the first assignment of error appellant argues the trial court erred in failing
to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law. We agree.
{¶7} R.C. 2953.21 provides in pertinent part:
(D) The court shall consider a petition that is timely filed within the
period specified in division (A)(2) of this section even if a direct appeal of
the judgment is pending. Before granting a hearing on a petition filed under
division (A)(1)(a)(i), (ii), (iii), or (iv) of this section, the court shall determine
whether there are substantive grounds for relief. In making such a
determination, the court shall consider, in addition to the petition, the
supporting affidavits, and the documentary evidence, all the files and
records pertaining to the proceedings against the petitioner, including, but
not limited to, the indictment, the court's journal entries, the journalized
records of the clerk of the court, and the court reporter's transcript. The court
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2023-0044 4
reporter's transcript, if ordered and certified by the court, shall be taxed as
court costs. If the court dismisses the petition, it shall make and file findings
of fact and conclusions of law with respect to such dismissal. If the petition
was filed by a person who has been sentenced to death, the findings of fact
and conclusions of law shall state specifically the reasons for the dismissal
of the petition and of each claim it contains.
(H) If the court does not find grounds for granting relief, it shall make
and file findings of fact and conclusions of law and shall enter judgment
denying relief on the petition.
{¶8} Under the provisions of R.C. 2953.21, it is the mandatory duty of the trial
court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law if a petitioner raises an issue properly
cognizable under the Post Conviction Remedy Act, the resolution of which requires the
determination of facts. See, e.g., State v. Jones, 8 Ohio St.2d 21, 22, 222 N.E.2d 313(1996); See also, State ex rel. Baldwin v. Reinbold, Stark App. No.2007CA00341, 2008–
Ohio–837; State v. Saylor, 125 Ohio App.3d 636, 638, 709 N.E.2d 231 (1998); State v.
Lester, 41 Ohio St.2d 51, 322 N.E.2d 656 (1975), paragraph two of the syllabus (findings
of fact and conclusions of law are mandatory under R.C. 2953.21 if the trial court
dismisses the petition). “Such findings are necessary to apprise the petitioner of the
grounds for the judgment of the trial court and to enable the appellate courts to properly
determine appeals in such a cause.” Jones, supra, at 22.
{¶9} “A trial court need not discuss every issue raised by appellant or engage in
an elaborate and lengthy discussion in its findings of fact and conclusions of law. The
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2023-0044 5
findings need only be sufficiently comprehensive and pertinent to the issue to form a basis
upon which the evidence supports the conclusion.” State v. Clemmons, 58 Ohio App.3d
45, 46, 568 N.E.2d 705, 706–707 (1989), citing 5A Moore, Federal Practice (2 Ed. 1990)
52–142, Section 52.06[1].
{¶10} In this case, Appellant filed a timely petition for postconviction relief, raising
claims of prosecutorial misconduct during the discovery process and ineffective
assistance of counsel during the pretrial investigation of the case. The trial court
summarily dismissed the petition without findings of fact and conclusions of law. On April
18, 2024, the trial court ordered the parties to submit proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law within thirty days of the judgment; however, this judgment was filed
during the pendency of this appeal in this Court, and findings of fact and conclusions of
law have not been issued by the trial court.
{¶11} We find the trial court erred as a matter of law in failing to issue findings of
fact and conclusions of law in compliance with R.C. 2953.21. Appellant's assignment of
error is sustained.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2023-0044 6
{¶12} The judgment of the Muskingum County Common Pleas Court is reversed,
and this case is remanded to that court with instructions to make findings of fact and
conclusions of law in support of its dismissal of Appellant's petition for postconviction
relief.
By: Hoffman, P.J.
Wise, J. and
Baldwin, J. concur