State v. Long
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Long, 2011-Ohio-6381.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : vs. : JOHN W. LONG, APPEAL NO. C-110139 TRIAL NO. B-0402803 : O P I N I O N. Defendant-Appellant. : Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Appeal Dismissed Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: December 14, 2011 Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Scott M. Heenan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee, John W. Long, pro se. Please note: We have removed this case from the accelerated calendar. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS Per Curiam. {¶1} Defendant-appellant John W. Long presents on appeal a single assignment of error challenging the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court s entry denying his application for DNA testing. Because the entry from which Long appeals is not a final appealable order, we dismiss the appeal. {¶2} Long was convicted of murder in 2004. He unsuccessfully challenged his conviction in direct appeals to this court and to the Ohio Supreme Court. See State v. Long (Oct. 26, 2005), 1st Dist. No. C-040643, appeal not accepted for review, 108 Ohio St.3d 1489, 2006-Ohio-962, 843 N.E.2d 794. {¶3} In December 2010, we remanded Long s case to the common pleas court for correction of his sentence upon our determination that the sentence was void to the extent that it included an unauthorized term of postrelease control. See State v. Long, 1st Dist. No. C-100285, 2010-Ohio-6115. In January 2011, the court corrected the sentence. {¶4} Meanwhile, in May 2010, Long had applied under R.C. 2953.71 et seq. for DNA testing of biological evidence found at the crime scene. The common pleas court denied the application, and this appeal followed. {¶5} Whether a court accepts or rejects an application for DNA testing of biological evidence, the court must memorialize its decision in a judgment and order * * * that includes * * * the reasons for the acceptance or rejection as applied to the criteria and procedures set forth in [R.C.] 2953.71 to 2953.81. See R.C. 2953.73(D) (emphasis added). A judgment entry accepting or rejecting an application for DNA testing that does not include the statutorily mandated reasons for the court s decision is not a final appealable order. See State v. Thomas, 1st Dist. 2 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS No. C-050245, 2005-Ohio-6823, ¶14 (citing State v. Mapson [1982], 1 Ohio St.3d 217, 438 N.E.2d 910); accord State v. Lemons, 11th Dist. No. 2010-T-0008, 2010Ohio-1445, ¶5; State v. Hayden, 2nd Dist. No. 20747, 2005-Ohio-4025; State v. Newell, 8th Dist. No. 85280, 2005-Ohio-2853, ¶6; State v. Hickman, 9th Dist. No. 22279, 2005-Ohio-472, ¶10. Cf. State v. Price, 165 Ohio App.3d 198, 2006-Ohio180, 845 N.E.2d 559, ¶12; State v. Smith, 8th Dist. No. 87937, 2007-Ohio-2369, ¶10 (remanding to the common pleas court to provide a detailed explanation of its conclusion in its entry that DNA testing would not be outcome-determinative). {¶6} The common pleas court entered its judgment overrul[ing] Long s motion for DNA testing upon find[ing] the said motion not well taken. Because the entry rejecting Long s application did not conform with R.C. 2953.73(D) s mandate that the entry include the court s reasons for the rejection, the entry did not constitute a final appealable order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. Appeal dismissed. DINKELACKER, P.J., HILDEBRANDT and HENDON, JJ. Please note: The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion. 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.
