State v. Poulton , 2016 Ohio 901 ( 2016 )

[Cite as State v. Poulton, 2016-Ohio-901.]
COURT OF APPEALS
MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:
Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
-vs-
Case No. CT2015-0041
ADAM C. POULTON
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Muskingum County Court
of Common Pleas, Case No. CR2013-0011
JUDGMENT: Dismissed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: March 7, 2016
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
D. MICHAEL HADDOX ADAM C. POULTON
Prosecuting Attorney A 686-056
Muskingum County, Ohio Ross Correctional Institution
PO Box 7010
By: GERALD V. ANDERSON II Chillicothe, Ohio 45601
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
Muskingum County, Ohio
27 North Fifth St., PO Box 189
Zanesville, Ohio 43702-0189
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2015-0041 2
Hoffman, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Adam C. Poulton appeals the July 9, 2015 Judgment
Entry entered by the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas denying his petition for
post-conviction relief filed pursuant to R.C. 2953.21. Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} On January 10, 2013, Dresden Police Officer Scott Caldwell was on routine
patrol when he observed an African–American male, later identified as Jeffrey Body, enter
a residence at 801 Canal Street, an area known for illegal drug activity. Officer Caldwell
also noticed a Cadillac automobile moving through the area. A few minutes later, he
returned to the area and saw a number of people in the middle of the street. Officer
Caldwell then saw Body, with blood on his person, running away from the group of people.
The officer radioed the Muskingum County Sheriff's Office for assistance. Body thereafter
told investigators he had been jumped and robbed by three or four males. During the
altercation, Body suffered several broken bones to his face and was robbed of his wallet
and automobile.
{¶3} On January 16, 2013, the Muskingum County Grand Jury indicted Appellant
on the following charges: 1) Aggravated Robbery with a firearm specification and repeat
violent offender specification, a felony of the first degree, R.C. 2911.01(A)(1), 2941.145,
and 2941.149; 2) Aggravated Robbery with a firearm specification and repeat violent
offender specification, a felony of the first degree, R.C. 2911.01(A)(3), 2941.145, and
2941.149; 3) Felonious Assault with a firearm specification and repeat violent offender
specification, a felony of the second degree, R.C. 2903.11(A)(1), 2941.145, and
2941.149; 4) Theft (motor vehicle), a felony of the fourth degree, R.C. 2913.02(A)(1); 5)
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2015-0041 3
Having a Weapon While Under Disability, a felony of the third degree, R.C. 2923.13(A)(2);
6) Having a Weapon While Under Disability, a felony of the third degree, R.C.
2923.13(A)(3); 7) Theft ($1,000–$7,500), a felony of the fifth degree, R.C. 2913.02(A)(1).
{¶4} Appellant appeared with his attorney for arraignment on January 23, 2013,
at which time he entered pleas of not guilty to the aforesaid counts.
{¶5} On March 26, 2013, Appellant's trial attorney filed a written motion to
withdraw as counsel. The trial court denied said motion via Judgment Entry.
{¶6} The case proceeded to a jury trial on May 30, 2013. Following the
presentation of evidence, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on all charges and
specifications.
{¶7} At sentencing, the trial court found the following counts would merge:
Counts One, Two, and Three; Counts Four and Seven; Counts Five and Six; all firearm
specifications; and all repeat violent offender specifications. The court also found Counts
One and Two would merge with Counts Four and Seven. The trial court thereupon
sentenced Appellant to an aggregate prison term of sixteen years.
{¶8} On direct appeal, this Court affirmed Appellant’s conviction and the trial
court’s denial of counsel’s motion to withdraw. State v. Poulton, Muskingum CT2013-
0030, 2014 Ohio 1198.
{¶9} On December 19, 2013, Appellant filed a petition for post-conviction relief,
pursuant to R.C. 2953.21, asserting his conviction and sentence should be set aside as
he was denied the effective assistance of counsel and was denied the right to counsel of
his choice.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2015-0041 4
{¶10} The trial court denied Appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief via
Judgment Entry of July 9, 2015.
{¶11} Appellant appeals, assigning as error:
{¶12} “I. THE LOWER COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING
APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF WITHOUT A HEARING
THEREBY DENYING HIM RIGHT TO COUNSEL GUARANTEED BY THE FIFTH, SIXTH
AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND
ARTICLE I, SECTION TEN OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.
{¶13} “II. THE LOWER COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING
APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND EXPERT
ASSISTANCE THEREBY DENYING HIS RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL
PROTECTION OF LAW GUARANTEED BY THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND SIMILAR
PROVISIONS OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.”
I
{¶14} In the first assignment of error, Appellant asserts the trial court erred in
denying his petition for post-conviction relief without a hearing.
{¶15} R.C. 2953.21(G) reads,
(G) 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. If no direct appeal of the case is pending and
the court finds grounds for relief or if a pending direct appeal of the case
has been remanded to the court pursuant to a request made pursuant to
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2015-0041 5
division (E) of this section and the court finds grounds for granting relief, it
shall make and file findings of fact and conclusions of law and shall enter a
judgment that vacates and sets aside the judgment in question, and, in the
case of a petitioner who is a prisoner in custody, shall discharge or
resentence the petitioner or grant a new trial as the court determines
appropriate. The court also may make supplementary orders to the relief
granted, concerning such matters as rearraignment, retrial, custody, and
bail. If the trial court's order granting the petition is reversed on appeal and
if the direct appeal of the case has been remanded from an appellate court
pursuant to a request under division (E) of this section, the appellate court
reversing the order granting the petition shall notify the appellate court in
which the direct appeal of the case was pending at the time of the remand
of the reversal and remand of the trial court's order. Upon the reversal and
remand of the trial court's order granting the petition, regardless of whether
notice is sent or received, the direct appeal of the case that was remanded
is reinstated.
{¶16} In State v. Mapson, 1 Ohio St. 3d 217, 438 N.E.2d 910 (1982), the Ohio
Supreme Court held,
After carefully reviewing the applicable statutes and the policies
underlying these statutes, this court holds that R.C. 2953.21 mandates that
a judgment denying post-conviction relief include findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and that a judgment entry filed without such findings is
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2015-0041 6
incomplete and it thus does not commence the running of the time period
for filing an appeal therefrom.
***
The procedural nature of R.C. 2953.21(C) cannot be ignored. This
section, along with the other sections dealing with post-conviction relief,
provide a procedure “ * * * to make available ‘the best method of protecting
constitutional rights of individuals, and, at the same time, provid[ing] a more
orderly method of hearing such matters.’ ” Kott v. Maxwell (1965), 3 Ohio
App.2d 337, 338, 210 N.E.2d 746 [32 O.O.2d 457]. This court's holding that
findings of fact and conclusions of law are part and parcel of a judgment
denying post-conviction relief fosters the orderliness of this process.
Important policy considerations also underlie this decision. The
obvious reasons for requiring findings are “ * * * to apprise 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 v. State (1966), 8
Ohio St. 2d 21, 22, 222 N.E.2d 313 [37 O.O.2d 357]. The existence of
findings and conclusions are essential in order to prosecute an appeal.
Without them, a petitioner knows no more than he lost and hence is
effectively precluded from making a reasoned appeal. In addition, the failure
of a trial judge to make the requisite findings prevents any meaningful
judicial review, for it is the findings and the conclusions which an appellate
court reviews for error. (Footnote omitted.)
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2015-0041 7
{¶17} Accordingly, a judgment entry without findings of fact and conclusions of
law is not a final, appealable order. State v. Evans, 9th Dist. 10CA0020, 2012-Ohio-1120,
citing State v. Beard, 9th Dist. No. 07CA009240, 2008-Ohio 3722.
{¶18} Here, the trial court’s July 9, 2015 Judgment Entry denied Appellant’s
petition for post-conviction relief without making the statutorily required findings of fact
and conclusions of law. Pursuant to R.C. 2953.21 and Ohio case law, we find the July 9,
2015 Judgment Entry is not a final appealable order as the entry does not set forth
findings of fact and conclusions of law other than denying Appellant’s petition for post-
conviction relief without a hearing. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for lack of a final
appealable order.
II.
{¶19} Based upon our disposition of Appellant’s first assignment of error, the
second assigned error is premature.
By: Hoffman, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Baldwin, J. concur