Opinion
No. 85-1152
Decided April 9, 1986.
Mandamus — Postconviction relief petitions — Findings of fact and conclusions of law required, when — Writ allowed.
IN MANDAMUS.
Relator, Larry L. Brown, filed this original action in mandamus to compel respondent, the Court of Common Pleas of Coshocton County, to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law in his postconviction proceeding.
Relator was convicted in 1983 of eight counts of drug charges after entering pleas of guilty to all counts. He was sentenced to seven one-and-one-half-year definite sentences to be served concurrently and to one two-year definite sentence to be served consecutively to the others. The prosecutor had recommended imprisonment of one year, but the trial judge stated on the record that he would not accept that recommendation because of relator's lengthy prior record which was shown in his sentencing report. The sentencing report recommended that all of the sentences run consecutively.
Subsequently, relator filed a postconviction petition which was dismissed by entry without findings of fact or conclusions of law because "[t]he record in this case fails to indicate that petitioner is entitled to the relief sought and petitioner has failed to submit evidentiary documents containing sufficient operative facts to meet his initial burden * * *."
Respondent has filed a motion to deny the writ and submitted copies of the transcript of relator's plea and sentencing hearings.
Larry Brown, pro se. William M. Owens, prosecuting attorney, for respondent.
Respondent contends that it is not required to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law when it determines that a petition for postconviction relief is without merit and was not supported by affidavits or other evidence and relies on State v. Jackson (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 107 [18 O.O.3d 348], and State v. Kapper (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 36.
Those cases do not support respondent's contention. They merely define the conditions under which a court may dispose of a postconviction petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing.
In State v. Mapson (1982), 1 Ohio St.3d 217, we held that a trial court is required to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law even upon a summary dismissal of a postconviction petition. Moreover, respondent has not demonstrated any particular facts which would justify departing from the rule set forth in Mapson. It has not even supplied a copy of relator's petition to demonstrate its alleged deficiencies. In addition, it submits the transcripts of relator's plea and sentencing hearings to support the motion to dismiss demonstrating that it relied on more than the deficiencies in relator's petition when it denied relief.
Accordingly, the writ of mandamus is allowed on authority of State v. Mapson, supra.
Writ allowed.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, C. BROWN, DOUGLAS and WRIGHT, JJ., concur.