State v. Young
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Young, 2012-Ohio-1732.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, Respondent-Appellee, vs. AARON E. YOUNG, Petitioner-Appellant. : APPEAL NO. C-110274 TRIAL NO. B-0701436 : : O P I N I O N. : : Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Appeal Dismissed Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: April 20, 2012 Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Paula E. Adams, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Respondent-Appellee, Aaron E. Young, pro se. Please note: We have removed this case from the accelerated calendar. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS Per Curiam. {¶1} Petitioner-appellant Aaron E. Young presents on appeal a single assignment of error challenging the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court s judgment denying his petition for postconviction relief. 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} Young was convicted upon guilty pleas to multiple counts of aggravated robbery and intimidation. In his direct appeal to this court, we affirmed his convictions. See State v. Young, 1st Dist. No. C-100065 (Nov. 17, 2010). {¶3} Young also challenged 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. See R.C. 2953.21(C) and (G); State v. Lester, 41 Ohio St.2d 51, 322 N.E.2d 656 (1975), paragraph two of the syllabus. 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. State v. Mapson, 1 Ohio St.3d 217, 218, 438 N.E.2d 910 (1982); see State ex rel. Carrion v. Harris, 40 Ohio St.3d 19, 19-20, 530 N.E.2d 1330 (1988). Accord State v. Gholston, 1st Dist. No. C-010789, 2002-Ohio-3674. {¶5} The entry denying Young s postconviction petition did not include findings of fact and conclusions of law. Nor does the entry otherwise apprise Young of 2 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS the basis for the court s decision or permit meaningful appellate review. Therefore, the entry is not a final appealable order. Accordingly, we dismiss Young s appeal. Appeal dismissed. HILDEBRANDT, P.J., DINKELACKER and FISCHER, 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.
