State v. Lester

Decision Date05 February 1975
Docket NumberNo. 74-50,74-50
Citation70 O.O.2d 150,322 N.E.2d 656,41 Ohio St.2d 51
Parties, 70 O.O.2d 150 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. LESTER, Appellant.
CourtOhio Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court

1. A convicted indigent defendant may not, in a postconviction proceeding or in an appeal therefrom, raise contentions that he was not informed of the procedure by which to appeal and of his right to court-appointed counsel for such an appeal. Such contentions are properly raised by way of motion for leave to appeal in the Court of Appeals. (State v. Sims, 27 Ohio St.2d 79, 272 N.E.2d 87, and State v. Benton, 27 Ohio St.2d 87, 272 N.E.2d 92, approved and followed.)

2. R.C. 2953.21 requires the trial court to consider the allegations of the petition for postconviction relief and the particular facts upon which the petitioner bases his claim; if, upon such consideration, the trial court finds no grounds for a hearing, the court is required to make and file findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the reasons for dismissal and as to the grounds for relief relied upon in the petition.

On February 9, 1973, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allen County, William K. Lester, appellant herein, was found guilty of the sale of narcotics. He was subsequently sentenced to the Ohio Penitentiary for a term of 20 to 40 years. No appeal as of right was taken within the 30-day period after entry of judgment, although appellant did write letters to his court-appointed counsel and to the Court of Appeals concerning a possible appeal. On July 24, 1973, appellant filed a petition pro se in the Court of Common Pleas to set aside his sentence under Ohio statutory provisions for postconviction determination of constitutional rights. Appellant stated two grounds for relief: First, that there was insufficient evidence to warrant conviction; second, that he did not have effective assistance of counsel at his trial. The petition was dismissed without a hearing and without a filing of findings of fact and conclusion of law. The journal entry stated, as a basis for dismissal, that appellant 'never appealed his judgment of conviction nor attempted to exercise further appellate remedies available to him.' A motion for appointment of counsel was also denied.

On September 25, 1973, appellant filed a notice of appeal from the dismissal of his petition for postconviction relief in the Court of Appeals. This appeal was dismissed on December 14, 1973, for failure to timely file a record.

Appeal from that dismissal was thereupon taken to this court, and we dismissed an appeal as of right, but allowed a motion for leave to appeal and appointed counsel to represent the appellant before this court.

Lawrence S. Huffman, Prosecuting Atty., for appellee.

Bowers, White & Demeo and Anthony J. Bowers, Lima, for appellant.

STERN, Justice.

Appellant raises two claims for postconviction relief. The first claim is that, at the sentencing hearing, neither the court nor appellant's court-appointed attorneys properly informed him that, because he is indigent, if he desired to appeal his case to the Court of Appeals, the court would appoint counsel under R.C. 2941.50(B). Appellant seeks herein to raise this claim upon appeal from the denial of postconviction relief. In State v. Benton (1971), 27 Ohio St.2d 87, 272 N.E.2d 92, we held that 'A convicted indigent defendant may not, in a postconviction proceeding, raise contentions that he was not informed of the procedure by which to appeal and of his right to court-appointed counsel for such an appeal.' This claim is properly raised by way of motion for leave to appeal in a Court of Appeals (State v. Sims (1971), 27 Ohio St.2d 79, 272 N.E.2d 87), and is not cognizable in an appeal from a denial of postconviction relief.

Appellant's second claim is that the Court of Common Pleas erred in dismissing the postconviction petition without appointing counsel to represent him and without filing findings of fact and conclusions of law. R.C. 2953.21, the Ohio statute for postconviction determination of constitutional rights, provides, inpertinent part:

'(A) Any person convicted of a criminal offense or adjudged delinquent claiming that there was such a denial or infringement of his rights as to render the judgment void or voidable under the Ohio Constitution or the Constitution of the United States, may file a verified petition at any time in the court which imposed sentence, stating the grounds for relief relied upon, and asking the court to vacate or set aside the judgment or sentence or to grant other appropriate relief. The petitioner may file such supporting affidavit and other documentary evidence as will support his claim for relief.

'* * * '(C) Before granting a hearing the court shall determine whether there are substantive grounds for relief. In making such a determination, the court shall consider, in addition to the petition and supporting affidavits, all the files and records pertaining to the proceedings against the petitioner, including but not limited to the indictment, the court's journal entries, the journalized records of the clerk of court, and the court reporter's transcript. Such court reporter's transcript if ordered and certified by the court shall be taxed as court costs. If the court dismisses the petition it shall make and file findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to such dismissal.'

R.C. 2953.21 specifically requires the court to 'determine whether there are substantive grounds for relief,' and, if the court dismisses the petition, to 'make and file findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to such dismissal.'

State v. Perry (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 226 N.E.2d 104, sets out the mandatory duties imposed by R.C. 2953.21 upon trial courts. Paragraphs 1 through 4 of the syllabus of that case state:

'1. Unless a petition by a prisoner for postconviction relief under Section 2953,21 et seq., Revised Code, and the files and records of the case show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, the court must cause...

To continue reading

Request your trial
236 cases
  • Davis v. Shoop
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Southern District of Ohio
    • June 16, 2020
    ...those claims brought in postconviction that were or could have been raised at trial or on direct appeal. Id., citing State v. Lester, 41 Ohio St. 2d 51, 54-55 (1975). Adhering to that precedent, the Twelfth District summarily concluded that the trial court did not err in dismissing without ......
  • State v. Parker, 2017-1575
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • October 9, 2019
    ...necessarily struck a balance between its purpose "to provide a remedy for violation of constitutional rights," State v. Lester , 41 Ohio St.2d 51, 56, 322 N.E.2d 656 (1975), and the public policy favoring the finality of judgments of conviction, Szefcyk at 95, 671 N.E.2d 233. It is the role......
  • State v. Blanton
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • November 10, 2022
    ...could have been fully litigated in an appeal, the court can summarily dismiss the claim as barred by res judicata." State v. Lester, 8 41 Ohio St.2d 51, 55, 322 N.E.2d 656 (1975). The trial court must issue findings of fact and conclusions of law specifying "the portions of the files and re......
  • State v. Dewaine Poindexter, 91-LW-2550
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • March 6, 1991
    ...under this assignment of error. The conclusions of law applying the doctrine of res judicata comply with the requirements of State v. Lester, supra, because they are supported by findings of fact which do to the relevant files and records which establish the res judicata bar. T.d. 26, at 4.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT