State ex rel. Penland v. Dinkelacker (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 3774

In Sept. 2016 Alex Penland alleges he filed two postconviction-relief petitions in Hamilton County; the trial judge issued summary denials without findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Penland appealed; the First District reached the merits and affirmed the trial-court denials. Penland sought further review in this Court, which declined jurisdiction.
Penland then filed an original mandamus action in the Ohio Supreme Court seeking an order compelling the trial judge to issue findings and conclusions so he could re-appeal, arguing that without those findings the trial orders were nonfinal and the earlier appeal was void.
The Supreme Court denied the writ, concluding Penland had an adequate remedy at law because he already had an appeal, and therefore mandamus was not available.
The Court also held that judgments denying postconviction relief are final and appealable under R.C. 2953.23(B), and that failure to issue statutorily required findings is an appealable error, not a jurisdictional defect.
The Court overruled State v. Mapson and State ex rel. Ferrell v. Clark to the extent those decisions suggested lack of findings renders an order nonfinal; concurring opinions raised equitable and factual concerns about lost filings and record deficiencies.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Penland had an adequate remedy at law so mandamus is unavailable	Penland: lack of findings made trial orders nonfinal and prior appeals void, so mandamus is needed to secure a new appeal	Respondent: Penland already appealed; appellate review was available, so mandamus not required	Held: Penland had an adequate remedy by way of appeal; mandamus denied
Whether absence of findings of fact/conclusions of law renders order nonfinal and deprives appellate jurisdiction	Penland: under Mapson/Ferrell, orders without findings are nonfinal, so appeals filed were void	Respondent: statutory law (R.C. 2953.23(B)) makes denial orders final despite missing findings	Held: Orders denying postconviction relief are final and appealable; missing findings is an error correctable on appeal, not a jurisdictional defect
Whether Mapson and Ferrell remain good law	Penland: Mapson/Ferrell support his claim that he needed mandamus	Respondent: those cases misread the jurisdictional statute and are inconsistent with R.C. 2953.23(B)	Held: Mapson and Ferrell overruled to the extent they hold lack of findings prevents appeal
Whether Penland may file a reply to respondent’s answer in mandamus proceeding	Penland: sought leave to file a reply	Respondent: no authority to allow a reply under Court rules	Held: Motion to file reply denied (no justification shown)

State v. Mapson, 1 Ohio St.3d 217 (1982) (treated absence of separate findings as affecting appeal timing and led to confusion about finality)
State ex rel. Ferrell v. Clark, 13 Ohio St.3d 3 (1984) (per curiam mandamus ordering trial court to issue findings; relied on Mapson)
State v. Lester, 41 Ohio St.2d 51 (1975) (reversed denial of postconviction relief where required findings were missing)
State ex rel. Turpin v. Court of Common Pleas, 8 Ohio St.2d 1 (1966) (procedendo/mandamus may be used to require a court to enter judgment to allow appeal)
State ex rel. Grove v. Nadel, 81 Ohio St.3d 325 (1998) (procedendo available to journalize judgment when necessary for appeal)
State ex rel. Dehler v. Sutula, 74 Ohio St.3d 33 (1995) (mandamus/procedendo can compel a court to proceed to judgment)
Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis, 100 Ohio St.3d 216 (2003) (factors for deciding whether to overrule precedent)
Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17 (1988) (appellant bears duty to assure the record on appeal is complete)
State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55 (2012) (sets forth mandamus standards for demonstrating clear legal right and duty)