Jones v. State
| Decision Date | 14 December 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 40254,40254 |
| Citation | 222 N.E.2d 313,8 Ohio St.2d 21 |
| Parties | , 37 O.O.2d 357 JONES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Ohio, Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
On February 25, 1959, appellant, Orville M. Jones, after signing a waiver of counsel, pleaded guilty to felonious assault.
In September 1965, appellant filed a petition under the Postconviction Remedy Act. The trial court denied him relief, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. The cause is before this court on a motion to certify the record.
Orville M. Jones, in pro. per.
Paul J. Mikus, Pros. Atty., for appellee.
In his petition and motions in support thereof, appellant alleges that he was held incommunicado, that an attorney told him to sign the waiver of counsel, and that he did not read such waiver and in fact could not read it inasmuch as he is a functional illiterate.
Basically, appellant alleges that he did not intelligently waive the right to counsel. The trial court made the following finding:
Section 2953.21, Revised Code, reads in part as follows:
'Unless the petition and the files and records of the case show to the satisfaction of the court that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, the court shall cause notice thereof to be served on the prosecuting attorney, grant a prompt hearing thereon determine the issues, and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto.'
Under the provisions of this section, it is the mandatory duty of the trial court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law if a petitioner raises an issue properly cognizable under the Postconviction Remedy Act, the resolution of which requires the determination of facts.
If such facts may not be determinated from an examination of the court records, it is the duty of the court, by deposition or otherwise, to conduct a hearing to obtain the necessary information to make the required findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Such findings are necessary to apprise the 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.
To have an effective waiver of counsel the accused must be fully informed of his right to counsel, either retained or state-appointed, must understand such right and must...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. William A. Hiatt
... ... The constitutional guarantee of a ... speedy trial was originally considered necessary to prevent ... oppressive pretrial incarceration, to minimize the anxiety of ... the accused, and to limit the possibility that the defense ... will be impaired. State ex rel, Jones v. Cuyahoga Cty ... Ct. of Common Pleas (1978), 55 Ohio St.2d 130, 131, 9 ... Ohio Ap.3d 108, 109, 378 N.E.2d 471, 472 ... Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution guarantees to ... the party accused in any court `a speedy public trial by an ... impartial ... ...
-
State v. Dewaine Poindexter
... ... grounds for the judgment of the trial court and to enable the ... appellate courts to properly determine appeals in such a ... cause." State, ex rel. Carrion, v. Harris ... (1988), 40 Ohio St. 3d 19, 19, 530 N.E.2d 1330, 1330-31, ... quoting Jones v. State (1966), 8 Ohio St. 2d 21, 22, ... 222 N.E.2d 313, 314. Regardless of whether a hearing is held ... under R.C. 2953.21(E), the duty to file findings of fact and ... conclusions of law under R.C. 2953.21(C) remains essentially ... unchanged. See State v. Mapson ... ...
-
State v. Wiles
...findings and conclusions serve " 'to apprise [the] petitioner of the grounds for the judgment * * * ' Jones v. State (1966), 8 Ohio St.2d 21, 22 [37 O.O.2d 357, 358, 222 N.E.2d 313, 314]. The existence of findings and conclusions are essential in order to prosecute an appeal. Without them, ......
-
State v. Snyder, 2009 Ohio 2473 (Ohio App. 5/22/2009)
...of the trial court and to enable the appellate courts to properly determine appeals in such a cause.' "Id., quoting Jones v. State (1966), 8 Ohio St.2d 21, 22. "The existence of findings and conclusions are essential in order to prosecute an appeal. Without them, a petitioner knows no more ......