DocketNumber: No. 06CA2887.
Citation Numbers: 2006 Ohio 5459
Judges: McFARLAND, J.:
Filed Date: 10/13/2006
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
{¶ 3} On December 17, 2004, a Ross County grand jury returned an indictment charging the Appellant with one count of forgery in violation of R.C.
{¶ 4} On November 30, 2005, the Appellant filed a petition to vacate or set aside his sentence and a motion for assignment of counsel. On January 5, 2006, the Appellant filed a motion to compel the defendant's attendance. The following day, the Appellant filed a motion to supplement his memorandum in support of his petition to vacate or set aside his sentence. On February 2, 2006, the trial court filed a journal entry denying the Appellant's motions and dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief. The Appellant now appeals from this decision, asserting the following assignments of error:
{¶ 5} 1. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT WHEN IT DISMISSED HIS PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF WITHOUT BENEFIT OF AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING.
{¶ 6} 2. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT WHEN IT FAILED TO ISSUE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW UPON DENYING APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF WITHOUT BENEFIT OF AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING.
{¶ 8} R.C.
* * * Before granting a hearing on a petition filed under division (A) 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 petition, 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. * * * If the court dismisses the petition, it shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law.
{¶ 9} The post-conviction relief statute does not expressly mandate a hearing for every post-conviction relief petition, and thus a hearing is not automatically required. State v. Jackson
(1980),
{¶ 10} Additionally, in a petition for post-conviction relief which asserts ineffective assistance of counsel, the petitioner bears the initial burden to submit evidentiary documents containing sufficient operative facts to demonstrate the lack of competent counsel and that the defense was prejudiced by counsel's ineffectiveness. Id., at syllabus.
{¶ 12} In this appeal, the Appellant argues that the trial court erred to his prejudice when it denied his petition for post-conviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing on his trial counsel's failure to raise the lack of service of process of the court-ordered furlough as a defense to his escape charge. In order to show that his trial counsel performed ineffectively, the Appellant must meet two requirements. First, he must demonstrate that counsel's performance was deficient by showing that counsel committed errors so serious that he or she was not, in effect, functioning as counsel. Strickland v.Washington (1984),
{¶ 13} As stated supra, nothing in the Appellant's petition for post conviction relief, his affidavit, or the accompanying documents he submitted suggested that his trial counsel was ineffective, or that but for such alleged ineffectiveness, the outcome of his trial would have been different. The Appellant failed to set forth sufficient operative facts in his petition to establish substantive grounds for post-conviction relief. Thus, we overrule his first assignment of error.
{¶ 14} In his second assignment of error, the Appellant argues that the trial court erred to his prejudice when it failed to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law upon denying his post-conviction petition without holding an evidentiary hearing. In its February 2, 2006 Journal Entry, however, the trial court plainly issued findings of fact relating to the Appellant's post-conviction petition, and issued conclusions of law based on those findings. Therefore, we overrule the Appellant's second assignment of error.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Ross County Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution.
IF A STAY OF EXECUTION OF SENTENCE AND RELEASE UPON BAIL HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY GRANTED BY THE TRIAL COURT OR THIS COURT, it is temporarily continued for a period not to exceed sixty days upon the bail previously posted. The purpose of a continued stay is to allow Appellant to file with the Ohio Supreme Court an application for a stay during the pendency of proceedings in that court. If a stay is continued by this entry, it will terminate at the earlier of the expiration of the sixty day period, or the failure of the Appellant to file a notice of appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court in the forty-five day appeal period pursuant to Rule II, Sec. 2 of the Rules of Practice of the Ohio Supreme Court. Additionally, if the Ohio Supreme Court dismisses the appeal prior to expiration of sixty days, the stay will terminate as of the date of such dismissal.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Exceptions.
Harsha, P.J. and Abele, J.: Concur in Judgment and Opinion.