State v. Campbell
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Campbell, 2011-Ohio-3784.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, Respondent-Appellee, vs. WILLIAM CAMPBELL, Petitioner-Appellant. : APPEAL NO. C-100705 TRIAL NO. B-0808031 : : D E C I S I O N. : : Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Judgment Appealed From Is: Dismissed Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: August 3, 2011 Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Philip R. Cummings, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Respondent-Appellee, William Campbell, pro se. Please note: we have removed this case from the accelerated calendar. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS Per Curiam. {¶1} Petitioner-appellant William Campbell appeals from the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court s judgment denying his petition for postconviction relief. He presents on appeal two assignments of error challenging the denial of his petition without a hearing. We dismiss the appeal because, without findings of fact and conclusions of law, the entry denying his postconviction petition is not a final appealable order. {¶2} Campbell was convicted upon jury verdicts finding him guilty of aggravated vehicular homicide and operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol. In his direct appeal to this court, we affirmed his convictions.1 His appeal of our decision is pending before the Ohio Supreme Court. {¶3} Campbell also sought relief from his convictions in a timely filed R.C. 2953.21 petition for postconviction relief. The common pleas court denied the petition, and this appeal followed. {¶4} When dismissing or denying a timely filed postconviction petition, a common pleas court must make and file findings of fact and conclusions of law.2 An entry dismissing or denying a postconviction petition is incomplete and, thus, does not commence the running of the period for filing an appeal therefrom if the entry does not contain findings of fact and conclusions of law, or if it does not otherwise apprise the petitioner of the basis for the decision or permit meaningful appellate review.3 See State v. Campbell (Mar. 4, 2011), 1st Dist. No. C-090875. See R.C. 2953.21(C) and (G); State v. Lester (1975), 41 Ohio St.2d 51, 322 N.E.2d 656, paragraph two of the syllabus. 3 State v. Mapson (1982), 1 Ohio St.3d 217, 218, 438 N.E.2d 910; see State ex rel. Carrion v. Harris (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 19, 19-20, 530 N.E.2d 1330. 1 2 2 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS {¶5} The entry denying Campbell s postconviction petition did not include findings of fact and conclusions of law. Nor does the entry otherwise apprise Campbell of the basis for the court s decision or permit meaningful appellate review. Therefore, the entry is not a final appealable order. Accordingly, we dismiss Campbell s appeal. Appeal dismissed. DINKELACKER, P.J., HILDEBRANDT and FISCHER, JJ. Please Note: The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this decision. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
