2021 Ohio 528
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Kolt L. Hunt was convicted by a jury in 2019 of two counts of child endangering (one second-degree felony, one third-degree felony).
- Hunt appealed; this Court affirmed his convictions and sentence in State v. Hunt, 2020-Ohio-1124, and denied reconsideration.
- On August 3, 2020 Hunt filed a petition for post-conviction relief raising due-process, ineffective-assistance, and Eighth Amendment claims; the State objected.
- The trial court denied the petition on August 20, 2020 but issued no findings of fact or conclusions of law as required by R.C. 2953.21(H).
- The deadline for Hunt’s petition fell during Ohio’s COVID-19 tolling period (Executive Order + Am.Sub.H.B. No.197); the appellate court found Hunt’s petition timely because tolling extended the filing window.
- The Fifth District reversed and remanded, holding the trial court must enter findings of fact and conclusions of law explaining its denial; the court did not reach whether an evidentiary hearing was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court was required to file findings of fact and conclusions of law under R.C. 2953.21(H) when denying a post-conviction petition | State argued no requirement because petition was untimely and thus dismissal need not include findings | Hunt argued the petition was timely and the court therefore had a statutory duty to issue findings and conclusions when denying relief | Court held the petition was timely and reversed: trial court must file findings of fact and conclusions of law and remand for those findings |
| Whether Hunt’s petition was timely given COVID-19 tolling (Am.Sub.H.B. No.197 and court tolling) | State argued petition was filed after the statutory 365-day deadline and thus untimely | Hunt argued tolling during the emergency extended the deadline, making his August 3, 2020 filing timely | Court held tolling applied; deadline was tolled from March 9–July 30, 2020, so Hunt’s petition was timely |
| Whether Hunt was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his post-conviction claims | State argued Hunt failed to show substantive grounds and res judicata barred claims, so no hearing necessary | Hunt argued the merits warranted an evidentiary hearing | Court did not decide (moot) because it reversed for lack of findings of fact and conclusions of law |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lester, 322 N.E.2d 656 (Ohio 1975) (explains purpose of findings of fact and conclusions of law to apprise parties and appellate review)
- State ex rel. Kimbrough v. Greene, 781 N.E.2d 155 (Ohio 2002) (no findings required when dismissing untimely post-conviction petition)
- In re Tolling of Time Requirements Imposed by Rules Promulgated by Supreme Court & Use of Technology, 141 N.E.3d 974 (Ohio 2020) (tolling of statutory filing deadlines during COVID-19 emergency)
- State ex rel. George v. Burnside, 889 N.E.2d 533 (Ohio 2008) (trial court has no duty to issue findings of fact and conclusions on successive post-conviction petitions)