State v. McDaniel
2017 Ohio 8123
Ohio Ct. App. 9th2017Background
- McDaniel was convicted in February 2013 of murder and aggravated robbery with specifications and sentenced to 25 years to life.
- He did not timely appeal the conviction; instead he filed multiple motions to withdraw his plea and postconviction petitions between 2013 and 2017, most of which were denied.
- A delayed appeal from the 2013 judgment was denied in April 2016; earlier appeals were dismissed for procedural default.
- On July 19, 2017 McDaniel moved for the trial court to make “essential findings” under Crim.R. 12(F) on his motion to withdraw his plea.
- On August 10, 2017 the trial court entered findings pursuant to Crim.R. 12(F), and McDaniel appealed that entry to the Sixth District.
- The Sixth District sua sponte concluded it lacked jurisdiction because the August 10 order was not a final, appealable order and therefore dismissed the appeal and taxed costs to McDaniel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court's Crim.R. 12(F) findings on Aug. 10, 2017 are a final, appealable order | McDaniel argued the trial court’s Crim.R. 12(F) findings on his postconviction motion are appealable | State argued the entry was not a final, appealable order and Crim.R. 12(F) applies to pretrial motions only | Court held the Crim.R. 12(F) entry is not a final, appealable order and is a nullity because Crim.R. 12(F) applies to pretrial motions |
| Whether trial court must issue findings of fact/conclusions on untimely postconviction petitions | McDaniel sought findings on his motion to vacate or set aside conviction | State maintained courts are not required to issue findings on untimely postconviction petitions | Court held trial courts have no duty to issue findings on untimely postconviction petitions; any such findings are a nullity |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Kimbrough v. Greene, 781 N.E.2d 155 (Ohio 2002) (trial courts not required to issue findings when dismissing untimely postconviction petitions)
- State ex rel. Hach v. Summit Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 806 N.E.2d 554 (Ohio 2004) (rule applies even when defendant claims unavoidable prevention from discovering facts for postconviction relief)
- State ex rel. Dillon v. Cottrill, 48 N.E.3d 552 (Ohio 2016) (reiterating no duty to enter findings on untimely postconviction petitions)