[Cite as State v. Sanders, 2024-Ohio-2894.]
COURT OF APPEALS MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO, : JUDGES: : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Plaintiff - Appellee : Hon. John W. Wise, J. : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. -vs- : : EIAN A. SANDERS, : Case No. CT2024-0024 : CT2024-0025 Defendant - Appellant : CT2024-0026 : : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas, Case Nos. Cr2022 346, CR2022-00159, CR2022-0132
JUDGMENT: Dismissed and Remanded
DATE OF JUDGMENT: July 30, 2024
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
JOSEPH A. PALMER EIAN A. SANDERS, Pro Se 27 North Fifth St. #805-703 Zanesville, Ohio 43702 15708 McConnelsville Road Caldwell, Ohio 43724 Muskingum County, Case No. CT2024-0024,25,26 2
Baldwin, J.
{¶1} The appellant, Eian A. Sanders, appeals the January 9, 2024, judgment
entry of the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas denying his petition for post-
conviction relief for three cases: CR2022-0132 (“132”), CR2022-0159 (“159”), and
CR2022-0346 (“346”). Appellee is the State of Ohio. The relevant facts leading to this
appeal are as follows.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND THE CASE
{¶2} On March 31, 2022, the appellant was indicted in case 132 on one count of
Trafficking in Drugs in violation of R.C. §2925.03(A)(2), one count of Possession of Drugs
in violation of R.C. §2925.11(A), and one count of Possession of Drug Paraphernalia in
violation of R.C. §2925.14(C)(1).
{¶3} On April 11, 2022, the appellant was indicted in case 159 on one count of
Possession of Drugs in violation of R.C. §2925.11(A), one count of Possession of Drug
Paraphernalia in violation of R.C. §2925.14(C)(1), and one count of Tampering with
Evidence in violation of R.C. §2921.12(A)(1).
{¶4} On July 25, 2022, the appellee filed a Bill of Information in case 346 on two
counts of Possession of Drugs in violation of R.C. §2925.11(A), one count of Possession
of Drug Paraphernalia in violation of R.C. §2925.14(C)(1), one count of Driving Under
Suspension in violation of R.C. §4510.16(A), and one count of Improperly Handling of a
Firearm in a Motor Vehicle in violation of R.C. §2923.16(B).
{¶5} On July 25, 2022, the appellee moved to dismiss one count of Possession
of Drugs in violation of R.C. §2925.11(A) and one count of Possession of Drug
Paraphernalia in violation of R.C. §2925.14(C)(1) from the indictment on case 132. The Muskingum County, Case No. CT2024-0024,25,26 3
appellee also moved to dismiss one count of Possession of Drug Paraphernalia in
violation of R.C. §2925.14(C)(1) and one count of Tampering with Evidence in violation
of R.C. §2921.12(A)(1).
{¶6} The appellant entered a plea of guilty to one count of Trafficking in Drugs in
violation of R.C. §2925.03(A)(2) on case 132, one count of Possession of Drugs in
violation of R.C. §2925.11(A) on case 159, and to the bill of information on case 346. The
trial court sentenced the appellant to five to seven and one-half years for case 132, twelve
months for case 159, and twenty-four months for case 346.
{¶7} On June 23, 2023, the appellant filed a Motion to Correct Sentencing.
{¶8} On July 21, 2023, the appellant filed a Motion for Postconviction Relief.
{¶9} On July 26, 2023, the trial court denied both motions.
{¶10} On August 25, 2023, the appellant filed a Notice of Appeal.
{¶11} On November 16, 2023, the appellee filed a Motion to Dismiss the
appellant’s appeal since no findings of facts and conclusions of law were part of the
judgment entry denying the appellant’s Motion for Postconviction Relief.
{¶12} On December 14, 2023, this Court granted the appellee’s Motion to
Dismiss.
{¶13} On January 9, 2024, the appellant filed a Motion for Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law.
{¶14} On February 9, 2024, the trial court denied that Motion, stating that the trial
court “made sufficient findings on the record and in its entry to support the imposition of
consecutive sentences. Muskingum County, Case No. CT2024-0024,25,26 4
{¶15} On March 1, 2024, the appellant filed a second Notice of Appeal and herein
raises the following two Assignments of Error:
{¶16} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIED
SANDERS TIMELY FILED POST-CONVICTION RELIEF PETITION WITHOUT MAKING
THE REQUISITE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN REGARDS TO
SAID PETITION, AS REQUIRED BY R.C. §2953.21(D); IGNORING THAT THE
SENTENCE GIVEN TO SANDERS IS IMPROPER BECAUSE THE RECORD DOES
NOT SUPPORT THE IMPOSITION OF CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES, AS PER R.C.
§2929.14(C)(4).”
{¶17} “II.THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIED
SANDERS TIMELY FILED POST-CONVICTION RELIEF PETITION WITHOUT MAKING
THE REQUISITE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN REGARDS TO
SAID PETITION, AS REQUIRED BY R.C. §2953.21(D); IGNORING AMBIGUITY AS TO
WHETHER SANDERS HAS A MEANING OPPORTUNITY FOR TRANSITIONAL
CONTROL OR JUDICIAL RELEASE.”
{¶18} For the purposes of judicial economy, we shall address the appellant’s
assignments of error out of order.
II.
{¶19} In the second Assignment of Error, the appellant argues that the trial court
erred when it denied the post-conviction relief petition without making the requisite
findings of fact and conclusions of law. We agree. Muskingum County, Case No. CT2024-0024,25,26 5
ANALYSIS
{¶20} Petitions for post-conviction relief are governed by R.C. §2953.21. Pursuant
to the statute, if a trial court dismisses a petition for post-conviction relief without a
hearing, it has to provide findings of fact and conclusions of law as to why the petition
was dismissed. See State v. Lester, 41 Ohio St.2d 51 (1975), paragraph two of the
syllabus.
{¶21} The purpose of requiring the trial court to include findings of fact and
conclusions of law in its judgment entry is to sufficiently apprise both the petitioner and
the potential appellate court of the grounds for its decision. State v. Foster, 1997 WL
626586 (9th Dist. Sept. 24, 1997), citing State ex. rel. Carrion v. Harris, 40 Ohio St.3d 19
(1988). In State v. Mapson, 1 Ohio St.3d 217 (1982), the Supreme Court of Ohio stated:
The obvious reasons for requiring finds are * * * to apprise petitioner
of the grounds for the judgment of the trial court and to enable the appellate
courts to properly determine appeals in such a cause.” Jones v. State, 8
Ohio St.2d 21 (1996). The existence of findings and conclusions are
essential in order to prosecute an appeal. Without them, a petitioner knows
no more than he lost and hence is effectively precluded from making a
reasoned appeal. In addition, the failure of a trial judge to make the requisite
findings prevents any meaningful judicial review, for it is the findings and
the conclusions which an appellate court reviews for error.
{¶22} In the case sub judice, we find that the trial court’s decision denying the
appellant’s Petition for Post-Conviction Relief does not satisfy the policy considerations
announced in Mapson. The trial court’s judgment entry states: “The Court made sufficient Muskingum County, Case No. CT2024-0024,25,26 6
findings on the record and in its entry to support the imposition of consecutive sentences.”
The trial court was attempting to subsume findings made on the record as its findings of
facts and conclusions of law.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Sanders, 2024-Ohio-2894.]
COURT OF APPEALS MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO, : JUDGES: : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Plaintiff - Appellee : Hon. John W. Wise, J. : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. -vs- : : EIAN A. SANDERS, : Case No. CT2024-0024 : CT2024-0025 Defendant - Appellant : CT2024-0026 : : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas, Case Nos. Cr2022 346, CR2022-00159, CR2022-0132
JUDGMENT: Dismissed and Remanded
DATE OF JUDGMENT: July 30, 2024
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
JOSEPH A. PALMER EIAN A. SANDERS, Pro Se 27 North Fifth St. #805-703 Zanesville, Ohio 43702 15708 McConnelsville Road Caldwell, Ohio 43724 Muskingum County, Case No. CT2024-0024,25,26 2
Baldwin, J.
{¶1} The appellant, Eian A. Sanders, appeals the January 9, 2024, judgment
entry of the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas denying his petition for post-
conviction relief for three cases: CR2022-0132 (“132”), CR2022-0159 (“159”), and
CR2022-0346 (“346”). Appellee is the State of Ohio. The relevant facts leading to this
appeal are as follows.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND THE CASE
{¶2} On March 31, 2022, the appellant was indicted in case 132 on one count of
Trafficking in Drugs in violation of R.C. §2925.03(A)(2), one count of Possession of Drugs
in violation of R.C. §2925.11(A), and one count of Possession of Drug Paraphernalia in
violation of R.C. §2925.14(C)(1).
{¶3} On April 11, 2022, the appellant was indicted in case 159 on one count of
Possession of Drugs in violation of R.C. §2925.11(A), one count of Possession of Drug
Paraphernalia in violation of R.C. §2925.14(C)(1), and one count of Tampering with
Evidence in violation of R.C. §2921.12(A)(1).
{¶4} On July 25, 2022, the appellee filed a Bill of Information in case 346 on two
counts of Possession of Drugs in violation of R.C. §2925.11(A), one count of Possession
of Drug Paraphernalia in violation of R.C. §2925.14(C)(1), one count of Driving Under
Suspension in violation of R.C. §4510.16(A), and one count of Improperly Handling of a
Firearm in a Motor Vehicle in violation of R.C. §2923.16(B).
{¶5} On July 25, 2022, the appellee moved to dismiss one count of Possession
of Drugs in violation of R.C. §2925.11(A) and one count of Possession of Drug
Paraphernalia in violation of R.C. §2925.14(C)(1) from the indictment on case 132. The Muskingum County, Case No. CT2024-0024,25,26 3
appellee also moved to dismiss one count of Possession of Drug Paraphernalia in
violation of R.C. §2925.14(C)(1) and one count of Tampering with Evidence in violation
of R.C. §2921.12(A)(1).
{¶6} The appellant entered a plea of guilty to one count of Trafficking in Drugs in
violation of R.C. §2925.03(A)(2) on case 132, one count of Possession of Drugs in
violation of R.C. §2925.11(A) on case 159, and to the bill of information on case 346. The
trial court sentenced the appellant to five to seven and one-half years for case 132, twelve
months for case 159, and twenty-four months for case 346.
{¶7} On June 23, 2023, the appellant filed a Motion to Correct Sentencing.
{¶8} On July 21, 2023, the appellant filed a Motion for Postconviction Relief.
{¶9} On July 26, 2023, the trial court denied both motions.
{¶10} On August 25, 2023, the appellant filed a Notice of Appeal.
{¶11} On November 16, 2023, the appellee filed a Motion to Dismiss the
appellant’s appeal since no findings of facts and conclusions of law were part of the
judgment entry denying the appellant’s Motion for Postconviction Relief.
{¶12} On December 14, 2023, this Court granted the appellee’s Motion to
Dismiss.
{¶13} On January 9, 2024, the appellant filed a Motion for Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law.
{¶14} On February 9, 2024, the trial court denied that Motion, stating that the trial
court “made sufficient findings on the record and in its entry to support the imposition of
consecutive sentences. Muskingum County, Case No. CT2024-0024,25,26 4
{¶15} On March 1, 2024, the appellant filed a second Notice of Appeal and herein
raises the following two Assignments of Error:
{¶16} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIED
SANDERS TIMELY FILED POST-CONVICTION RELIEF PETITION WITHOUT MAKING
THE REQUISITE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN REGARDS TO
SAID PETITION, AS REQUIRED BY R.C. §2953.21(D); IGNORING THAT THE
SENTENCE GIVEN TO SANDERS IS IMPROPER BECAUSE THE RECORD DOES
NOT SUPPORT THE IMPOSITION OF CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES, AS PER R.C.
§2929.14(C)(4).”
{¶17} “II.THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIED
SANDERS TIMELY FILED POST-CONVICTION RELIEF PETITION WITHOUT MAKING
THE REQUISITE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN REGARDS TO
SAID PETITION, AS REQUIRED BY R.C. §2953.21(D); IGNORING AMBIGUITY AS TO
WHETHER SANDERS HAS A MEANING OPPORTUNITY FOR TRANSITIONAL
CONTROL OR JUDICIAL RELEASE.”
{¶18} For the purposes of judicial economy, we shall address the appellant’s
assignments of error out of order.
II.
{¶19} In the second Assignment of Error, the appellant argues that the trial court
erred when it denied the post-conviction relief petition without making the requisite
findings of fact and conclusions of law. We agree. Muskingum County, Case No. CT2024-0024,25,26 5
ANALYSIS
{¶20} Petitions for post-conviction relief are governed by R.C. §2953.21. Pursuant
to the statute, if a trial court dismisses a petition for post-conviction relief without a
hearing, it has to provide findings of fact and conclusions of law as to why the petition
was dismissed. See State v. Lester, 41 Ohio St.2d 51 (1975), paragraph two of the
syllabus.
{¶21} The purpose of requiring the trial court to include findings of fact and
conclusions of law in its judgment entry is to sufficiently apprise both the petitioner and
the potential appellate court of the grounds for its decision. State v. Foster, 1997 WL
626586 (9th Dist. Sept. 24, 1997), citing State ex. rel. Carrion v. Harris, 40 Ohio St.3d 19
(1988). In State v. Mapson, 1 Ohio St.3d 217 (1982), the Supreme Court of Ohio stated:
The obvious reasons for requiring finds are * * * to apprise petitioner
of the grounds for the judgment of the trial court and to enable the appellate
courts to properly determine appeals in such a cause.” Jones v. State, 8
Ohio St.2d 21 (1996). The existence of findings and conclusions are
essential in order to prosecute an appeal. Without them, a petitioner knows
no more than he lost and hence is effectively precluded from making a
reasoned appeal. In addition, the failure of a trial judge to make the requisite
findings prevents any meaningful judicial review, for it is the findings and
the conclusions which an appellate court reviews for error.
{¶22} In the case sub judice, we find that the trial court’s decision denying the
appellant’s Petition for Post-Conviction Relief does not satisfy the policy considerations
announced in Mapson. The trial court’s judgment entry states: “The Court made sufficient Muskingum County, Case No. CT2024-0024,25,26 6
findings on the record and in its entry to support the imposition of consecutive sentences.”
The trial court was attempting to subsume findings made on the record as its findings of
facts and conclusions of law. However, no transcript was provided to this Court with the
record. Upon review of the record, the trial court denied the appellant’s motions to have
a transcript prepared. Thus, this Court is still prevented from any meaningful judicial
review of the trial court’s decision.
{¶23} We find the judgment is insufficient to fulfill the requirement of R.C.
§2953.21(H). A judgment entry dismissing a post-conviction petition without findings of
facts and conclusions of law is not a final, appealable order. State v. Poulton, 2016-Ohio-
901 (5th Dist.), ¶17.
{¶24} The appellant’s second Assignment of Error is sustained.
I.
{¶25} Due to our disposition in the appellant’s second assignment of error, the
first Assignment of Error is rendered moot. Muskingum County, Case No. CT2024-0024,25,26 7
CONCLUSION
{¶26} For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed and the case is
remanded to allow the trial court to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law within
sixty days of this opinion and then rule upon any timely objections filed thereafter.
By: Baldwin, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Wise, John, J. concur.