2020 Ohio 3720
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- In 2012 Anthony Conner was indicted for a nightclub shooting; a 2013 jury convicted him of aggravated murder and related offenses, and he was sentenced to 39½ years; direct appeal affirmed.
- In May 2019 Conner filed an application under Ohio’s postconviction DNA-testing statute (R.C. 2953.71–.83) seeking testing of shell casings, upload of an existing firearm DNA profile to CODIS, and full lab results.
- The prosecutor opposed the application; the trial court denied it in a one-line journal entry: “Defendant’s motion for application of DNA testing filed 5/02/19 is denied.”
- Conner appealed; this court issued a show-cause order asking whether the trial court’s bare denial—without the statutorily required reasons (R.C. 2953.73(D))—is a final appealable order.
- Both parties urged that the denial was final and appealable under R.C. 2505.02 and that an appellate court could infer the trial court’s reasons; the court instead relied on precedent requiring written reasons and dismissed the appeal for lack of a final appealable order.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Conner's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s one-line denial of a DNA-testing application is a final appealable order | The order is final under R.C. 2505.02; appellate review is proper | The order is final and appealable under R.C. 2505.02 | Not final; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the entry omitted the reasons required by R.C. 2953.73(D) |
| Whether the appellate court may infer the trial court’s reasons and proceed despite the lack of written findings | Appellate court can infer the trial court’s reasons because the issue before the trial court was limited | The appellate court should infer or at least remand for compliance; jurisdiction exists | Court refused to infer reasons and declined to proceed; followed precedent requiring explicit findings in the journal entry |
| Whether, when a trial court gives some but insufficient reasoning, the proper remedy is remand for explanation | Appellate court can remand for the trial court to supply adequate reasoning | Conner argued that at minimum the case should be remanded to obtain statutorily required reasons | When some explanation exists courts have remanded; but here there were no reasons at all, so dismissal is required |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Mapson, 1 Ohio St.3d 217, 438 N.E.2d 910 (Ohio 1982) (a judgment entry that omits statutorily mandated findings is not a final appealable order)
- State v. Rawls, 76 N.E.3d 674 (8th Dist. 2016) (appellate court remanded where trial court’s stated reasons were insufficient for meaningful review)
- State v. Price, 165 Ohio App.3d 198 (1st Dist. 2006) (entry denying DNA testing that fails to provide reasons cannot be meaningfully reviewed on appeal)