State v. HuntState v. Hunt
COURT OF APPEALS
TUSCARAWAS COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO
Plaintiff-Appellee
-vs-
KOLT HUNT
Defendant-Appellant
JUDGES:
Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
Hon. Earle E. Wise, J.
Case No. 2020 AP 09 0019
OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from the Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2018CR070234
JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: February 24, 2021
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee
ROBERT C. URBAN, JR.
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
125 East High Street
New Philadelphia, OH 44663
For Defendant-Appellant
KOLT HUNT PRO SE
#A759551
Belmont Correctional Institute
68158 Bannock Road
St. Clairsville, OH 43950
Gwin, P.J.
{¶1} Appellant Kolt L. Hunt appeals the August 20, 2020 judgment entry of the Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas denying his petition for post-conviction relief. Appellee is the state of Ohio.
Facts & Procedural History
{¶2} In 2019, appellant was found guilty by a jury of two counts of child endangering, one violation of
{¶3} On August 3, 2020, appellant filed a petition to vacate or set aside conviction and sentence, arguing he was denied due process of law, denied effective assistance of counsel, and subject to cruel and unusual punishment. Appellee filed an objection to the petition on August 10, 2020.
{¶4} On August 20, 2020, the trial court issued a judgment entry denying the petition. The trial court stated it, “reviewed the petition of the Defendant and the
{¶5} Appellant appeals the August 20, 2020 judgment entry of the Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas and assigns the following as error:
{¶6} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING PETITIONER HUNT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING IN REGARD TO HIS PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF.
{¶7} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ISSUING INADEQUATE AND ERRONEOUS FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN REGARD TO PETITIONER HUNT’S PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF.”
II.
{¶8} We first address appellant’s second assignment of error because it is dispositive of appellant’s appeal. Appellant argues in his second assignment of error that the trial court erred in denying his petition for post-conviction relief without making findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by
{¶9}
{¶10} The findings of fact and conclusions of law should be explicit enough to give the appellate court a clear understanding of the basis of the trial court’s decision and
{¶11} The Supreme Court has held that a trial court “need not issue findings of fact and conclusions of law when it dismisses an untimely [post-conviction-relief] petition.” State ex rel. Kimbrough v. Greene, 98 Ohio St.3d 116, 2002-Ohio-7042, 781 N.E.2d 155. If a petition for post-conviction relief is untimely, the trial court had no clear duty to issue findings of fact or conclusions of law. Dillon v. Cottrill, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2014-0053, 2015-Ohio-1785. Further, a trial court “has no duty to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law on successive * * * petitions for post-conviction relief.” State ex rel. George v. Burnside, 118 Ohio St.3d 406, 2008-Ohio-2702, 889 N.E.2d 533.
{¶12} This is the first post-conviction petition appellant filed and is therefore not a successive petition. Appellee contends the trial court was not required to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law because appellant’s petition was not timely filed. Appellant filed a direct appeal of his sentencing entry. Pursuant to
{¶14} Appellee also contends appellant failed to submit substantive grounds for relief and that his claims are barred by res judicata. However, this analysis is relevant to whether appellant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing, not to a determination of whether findings of fact and conclusions of law in the trial court’s judgment entry are sufficient to apprise the petitioner and this Court of the grounds for its decision. State v. Atkinson, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2019-0055, 2019-Ohio-3122;
{¶15} In this case, the trial court did not make any findings of fact and conclusions of law, and denied the petition for post-conviction relief without stating its reasons for denying the petition. We therefore sustain appellant’s second assignment of error and
{¶16} Based on the foregoing, the August 20, 2020 judgment entry of the Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas is reversed and remanded to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
By Gwin, P.J.,
Hoffman, J., and
Wise, Earle, J, concur