[Cite as State v. Thompson, 2012-Ohio-3188.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

WASHINGTON COUNTY 

STATE OF OHIO, : 

 : 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : Case Nos. 10CA5 & 10CA13 

 : 

 vs. : Released: July 6, 2012 

 : 

DANNY W. THOMPSON, II, : DECISION AND JUDGMENT 

 : ENTRY

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

_____________________________________________________________ 

APPEARANCES:

John A. Bay, Bay Law Office, L.L.C., Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant.1

James E. Schneider, Washington County Prosecuting Attorney, and Alison 

L. Cauthorn, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Marietta, Ohio, for Appellee. 

_____________________________________________________________ 

 

Per Curiam: 

{¶1} This is a consolidated appeal from a Washington County Court 

of Common Pleas judgment entry issued after holding a re-sentencing 

hearing in order to properly impose a mandatory five-year term of post 

release control (10CA5) and a subsequent journal entry denying Appellant’s 

petition for post-conviction relief (10CA13). In case number 10CA5, 

Appellant raises twelve combined assignments of error both pro se and 

through counsel, which are set forth infra. As to the first assignment of error 

raised by counsel, we conclude that the trial court erred in reclassifying 

 

1

 Appellant has also filed two pro se briefs in this consolidated appeal. 
Washington App. Nos. 10CA5 and 10CA13 2

Appellant under Ohio’s Adam Walsh Act during the re-sentencing hearing. 

Accordingly, this assignment of error is sustained, this portion of the trial 

court’s decision is reversed, and the matter is remanded to the trial court 

with instructions to reinstate Appellant’s original sex offender classification. 

{¶2} With respect to the second assignment of error raised by counsel, 

as we conclude that the re-sentencing entry is a final, appealable order 

despite its failure to state the “manner of conviction,” this assignment of 

error is overruled. Further, with regard to Appellant’s first and second pro 

se assignments of error, in light of our conclusion that Appellant was 

properly re-sentenced in accordance with State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 

92, 2010-Ohio-6238, 942 N.E.2d 332, both of these assignments of error are 

overruled. As Appellant’s third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and 

ninth assignments of error all raise issues stemming from the trial 

proceedings, they are barred by res judicata and we do not address them. 

Finally, because Appellant suffered no prejudice as a result of the trial 

court’s failure to advise him of his right to appeal, the trial court’s failure to 

do so is harmless and Appellant’s tenth pro se assignment of error is 

overruled. 

{¶3} In case number 10CA13, Appellant raises two assignments of 

error, one of which is raised pro se and the other through counsel. Counsel 

filed an “Anders brief” on Appellant’s behalf with one assignment of error 
Washington App. Nos. 10CA5 and 10CA13 3

contending that the trial court erred by conducting a re-sentencing hearing 

because the State of Ohio failed to exercise its appeal as of right regarding 

the trial court’s failure to impose mandatory five-year post release control, 

thereby forfeiting its right to such hearing. Further, in his pro se brief, 

Appellant contends that the trial court erred by dismissing his petition when 

it failed to inform him of his constitutional right to appeal, to counsel, and 

documents at state’s expense after re-sentencing him for a post release 

control error. Because we find no merit to either the Anders assignment of 

error, or the pro se assignment of error, the decision of the trial court 

denying Appellant’s petition for post conviction relief is affirmed, and 

counsel’s motion to withdraw is hereby granted. 

{¶4} Accordingly, case number 10CA5 is affirmed in part, reversed in 

part, and remanded in part. Further, case number 10CA13 is affirmed. 

FACTS 

{¶5} Appellant was convicted by a jury of three counts of unlawful 

sexual conduct with a minor, each third degree felonies in violation of R.C. 

2907.04(A) and (B)(3), and was sentenced on May 22, 2006. At that time, 

Appellant was classified as a sexually oriented offender. The sentencing 

entry issued on May 31, 2006, did not properly impose a mandatory fiveyear term of post release control. Subsequently, after a direct appeal and 

several post-conviction motions, Appellant was returned to the trial court for 
Washington App. Nos. 10CA5 and 10CA13 4

a re-sentencing hearing on January 21, 2010, in order that the trial court 

could properly impose a mandatory five-year term of post release control, 

which it did by re-sentencing entry filed on January 27, 2010. As part of the 

re-sentencing process, the trial court reclassified Appellant, under Ohio’s 

Adam Walsh Act, as a tier II sexual offender. Appellant’s direct appeal 

from the re-sentencing entry followed, as evidenced in case number 10CA5. 

{¶6} Appellant also filed a motion for post-conviction relief in the 

trial court, which was denied without a hearing on April 21, 2010. 

Appellant has also appealed the denial of his motion for post-conviction 

relief, as evidenced in case number 10CA13. These appeals have been 

consolidated and together raise the following assignments of error. 

CASE NO. 10CA5 ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR 

BY COUNSEL 

“I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY RECLASSIFYING MR. 

THOMPSON UNDER OHIO’S ADAM WALSH ACT’S R.C. 

2950.031 AND 2950.032 WHEN HE HAD ALREADY BEEN 

CLASSIFIED BY COURT ORDER UNDER FORMER LAW. 

II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO ISSUE A 

JOURNAL ENTRY IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE V. BAKER

(2008), 119 OHIO ST.3D 197 AND CRIM.R. 32(C).” 

PRO SE 

“I. APPELLANT CONTENDS HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO 

BE SENTENCED IN A TIMELY MANNER WAS VIOLATED BY 

THE TRIAL COURT FAILING TO DISMISS PROSECUTORS 

CASE GIVEN THE UNREASONABLE DELAY IN SENTENCING 
Washington App. Nos. 10CA5 and 10CA13 5

APPELLANT ON FELONY CHARGES, THUS, COMMITTING 

PLAIN ERROR AND REMOVING JURISDICTION. 

II. APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED 

BY NOT HOLDING A PROPER RESENTENCING HEARING DE 

NOVO AFTER PLACING APPELLANT ON POST RELEASE 

CONTROL, BUT ONLY SUPPLEMENT THE PROCEEDINGS. 

III. COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE WHEN HE FAILED TO 

CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE A JUROR WHO TESTIFIED THAT 

THE ALLEGED VICTIM STAYED AT HIS HOME OVERNIGHT 

WITH HIS OWN TEENAGE DAUGHTER. 

IV. TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR ALLOWING 

INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY WHICH MATERIALLY EFFECTED 

THE APPELLANTS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL. 

V. TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO OBJECT TO IMPROPER 

QUESTIONING BY THE PROSECUTOR OF THE LEAD 

DETECTIVE THUS VIOLATING THE FIFTH AND SIXTH 

AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONST. 

VI. APPELLANT WAS PREJUDICED BECAUSE OF THE 

TESTIMONY OF A LAY WITNESS AND A NON EXPERT 

WITNESS REGARDING THEIR OPINION OF THE VERACITY 

OF THE STATEMENT OF A CHILD DECLARANT AND 

CONSTITUTES PLAIN ERROR AS A MATTER OF LAW. 

VII. THE PROSECUTION TEAM DENIED APPELLANT DUE 

PROCESS OF LAW IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FIFTH 

AMENDMENT BY VIOLATING APPELLANTS FOURTH 

AMENDMENT RIGHT WHEN DENYING CERTAIN MIRANDA 

RIGHTS. 

VIII. APPELLANTS CONVICTION WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY 

SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND WERE AGAINST THE 

MANIFEST WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE THEREBY VIOLATING 

HIS RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS PURSUANT TO §10 ARTICLE 1 

OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION AND THE 5TH AND 6TH

AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. 
Washington App. Nos. 10CA5 and 10CA13 6

IX. PROSECUTOR RINGS KNOWINGLY MISREPRESENTATION 

OF THE TRUTH OR CONCEALMENT OF THE MEDICAL 

RECORDS BY INDUCING DEFENSE COUNSEL INTO 

BELIEVING THE RECORDS WERE IMMATERIAL VIOLATED 

APPELLANTS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL IN ACCORDANCE 

WITH ARTICLE 1, SECTION X OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION 

AND THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES 

CONSTITUTION. 

X. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO APPOINT 

COUNSEL FOR DIRECT APPEAL OF RIGHT FOLLOWING 

RESENTENCING TO CORRECT VOID SENTENCE, THEREBY 

DENYING APPELLANT DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL 

PROTECTION OF LAW IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH, AND 

SIXTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES 

CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE IV, SECTION 3 OF THE OHIO 

CONSTITUTION.” 

CASE NO. 10CA13 ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR 

BY COUNSEL (ANDERS BRIEF) 

“I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY CONDUCTING A 

RESENTENCTING HEARING BECAUSE THE STATE OF OHIO 

FAILED TO EXERCISE ITS APPEAL OF RIGHT REGARDING 

THE TRIAL COURT’S FAILURE TO IMPOSE MANDATORY 

FIVE YEAR PERIOD OF POST RELEASE CONTROL, THEREBY 

FORFEITING ITS RIGHT TO SUCH HEARING.” 

PRO SE 

“I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DISMISSING THE 

APPELLANTS PETITION WHEN IT FAILED TO INFORM 

APPELLANT OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO APPEAL, 

TO COUNSEL, AND DOCUMENTS AT STATE’S EXPENSE 

AFTER RESENTENCING FOR A POST RELEASE CONTROL 

ERROR, THUS, VIOLATING HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS 

AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAW UNDER BOTH THE OHIO 

AND UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AND CRIMINAL 

RULE 32 OF THE REVISED CODE.” 

CASE NO. 10CA5 LEGAL ANALYSIS 
Washington App. Nos. 10CA5 and 10CA13 7

BRIEF BY COUNSEL 

{¶7} For ease of analysis, we address the assignments of error raised 

by Appellant’s court appointed appellate counsel out of order. In his second 

assignment of error, Appellant, through counsel, contends that the trial court 

erred by failing to issue a journal entry compliant with State v. Baker, 119 

Ohio St.3d 197, 2008-Ohio-3330, 893 N.E.2d 163, and Crim.R. 32(C). 

Appellant’s argument is based upon the trial court’s failure to include the 

“manner of conviction” in the journal entry. 

{¶8} A review of the record reveals that the re-sentencing entry does 

not mention the jury verdicts. Instead the entry states that Appellant 

“appeared in open court, and was found Guilty of three counts of Unlawful 

Sexual Conduct with a minor[.]” Recently, in State v. Lester, 130 Ohio 

St.3d 303, 2011-Ohio-5204, 958 N.E.2d 142, the Supreme Court of Ohio 

held that “[a] judgment of conviction is a final order subject to appeal under 

R.C. 2505.02 when it sets forth (1) the fact of the conviction, (2) the 

sentence, (3) the judge's signature, and (4) the time stamp indicating the 

entry upon the journal by the clerk.” Id. at syllabus. As set forth above, 

Appellant’s journal entry contained these elements. The fact that it failed to 

set forth the “manner of conviction” does not affect its finality. Id. at ¶ 12. 

As further explained in Lester: 
Washington App. Nos. 10CA5 and 10CA13 8

Crim.R. 32(C) does not require a judgment entry of conviction 

to recite the manner of conviction as a matter of substance, but 

it does require the judgment entry of conviction to recite the 

manner of conviction as a matter of form. In this regard, the 

identification of the particular method by which a defendant 

was convicted is merely a matter of orderly procedure rather 

than of substance. A guilty plea, a no-contest plea upon which 

the court has made a finding of guilt, a finding of guilt based 

upon a bench trial, or a guilty verdict resulting from a jury trial 

explains how the fact of a conviction was effected. 

Consequently, the finality of a judgment entry of conviction is 

not affected by a trial court's failure to include a provision that 

indicates the manner by which the conviction was effected, 

because that language is required by Crim.R. 32(C) only as a 

matter of form, provided the entry includes all the substantive 

provisions of Crim.R. 32(C). Id. 

Thus, in light of the recent holding in Lester, we conclude that the resentencing entry is a final, appealable order.2

 Accordingly, 

Appellant’s second assignment of error is overruled. 

 

2

 In so holding, we further note that State v. Lester provides in ¶ 16 that “if a judgment entry of conviction 

does not indicate how a defendant’s conviction was effected, * * * and if it is not corrected sua sponte, * * 

* a party may obtain a correction to the judgment entry by a motion filed with the trial court to correct the 

judgment of conviction. See Crim.R. 36, in conjunction with Crim.R. 57(B) and 47 and Civ.R. 7(B).” 
Washington App. Nos. 10CA5 and 10CA13 9

{¶9} In his first assignment of error raised by counsel, 

Appellant contends that the trial court erred by reclassifying him 

under Ohio’s Adam Walsh Act when he had already been classified 

by court order under former law. The State concedes that the trial 

court erred in reclassifying Appellant and agrees that Appellant’s 

former status as a sexually oriented offender should be reinstated. 

Based upon the following, we agree. 

{¶10} In State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 266, 2010-Ohio-2424, 

933 the N.E.2d 753, Supreme Court of Ohio held that defendants who 

had been classified as sex offenders under former law could not be 

reclassified under the Adam Walsh Act. Id. at paragraphs two and 

three of the syllabus. As a result, the Court struck the sections of the 

Ohio Revised Code that instructed the attorney general to reclassify 

sex offenders, and held “that the reclassifications of sex offenders by 

the attorney general are invalid, and reinstate[d] the prior judicial 

classifications of sex offenders.” Id. at ¶ 2. Further, in In Re Sexual 

Offender Reclassification Cases, 126 Ohio St.3d 322, 2010-Ohio3753, 933 N.E.2d 801, at ¶ 139, the Supreme Court of Ohio held the 

proper remedy to be reinstatement of the offender’s original sexual 

offender classication. 
Washington App. Nos. 10CA5 and 10CA13 10

{¶11} Based upon the rationale of Bodyke, Appellant’s first 

assignment of error is sustained. Further, Appellant’s reclassification 

as a tier II sexual offender is reversed and this matter is remanded to 

the trial court with instructions to reinstate Appellant’s original sex 

offender classification. In re Sexual Offender Reclassification Cases

at ¶ 139. 

PRO SE BRIEF 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I 

{¶12} In Appellant’s first pro se assignment of error under Case 

No. 10CA5, Appellant contends that his constitutional right to be 

sentenced in a timely manner was violated by the trial court failing to 

dismiss the prosecutor’s case given the unreasonable delay in 

sentencing, which he claims resulted in plain error and lack of 

jurisdiction by the court. We disagree. 

{¶13} The Supreme Court of Ohio recently provided in State v. 

Fischer, supra, at paragraph one of the syllabus, that “[a] sentence that does 

not include the statutorily mandated term of postrelease control is void, is 

not precluded from appellate review by principles of res judicata, and may 

be reviewed at any time, on direct appeal or by collateral attack. (Emphasis 

added). Thus, regardless of the delay between Appellant’s convictions and 

sentencing, Appellant’s resentencing was appropriate. Further, as Fischer
Washington App. Nos. 10CA5 and 10CA13 11

noted, “when a judge fails to impose statutorily mandated postrelease control 

as part of a defendant's sentence, that part of the sentence is void and must 

be set aside. Id. at ¶ 26. (footnote omitted). As such, only the incorrect 

imposition of postrelease control was void, while all other aspects of the 

sentence remained intact. Accordingly, Appellant’s first pro se assignment 

of error is overruled. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II 

{¶14} In his second pro se assignment of error, Appellant contends 

that the trail court erred by only supplementing the proceedings and not 

holding a de novo re-sentencing hearing. However, based upon the holding 

in State v. Fischer, supra, we disagree. 

{¶15} In Fischer, at paragraph one of the syllabus, the Supreme Court 

of Ohio reaffirmed that a sentence that failed to include the statutorily 

required post release control term is void. However, the only part of the 

sentence that is “void” is the portion that fails to comply with the 

requirements of post release control statutes. As already mentioned above, 

“when a judge fails to impose statutorily mandated postrelease control as 

part of a defendant's sentence, that part of the sentence is void and must be 

set aside.” Id. at ¶ 26. But “the new sentencing hearing to which an offender 

is entitled * * * is limited to proper imposition of postrelease control.” Id. at 

¶ 29. 
Washington App. Nos. 10CA5 and 10CA13 12

{¶16} Thus, after Fischer, “it is clear that a trial court need not 

conduct a ‘de novo’ sentencing hearing, and instead must simply re-sentence 

an appellant by reimposing the original sentence, and by adding the proper 

post release control notification.” State v. Hawk, Athens App. No. 10CA50, 

2011-Ohio-4577, ¶ 13. With the exception of the sexual offender 

reclassification, which we have already addressed, this is what the trial court 

did. As such, we cannot conclude that the trial court erred. Accordingly, 

Appellant’s second pro se assignment of error is overruled. 

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR III – IX 

{¶17} Appellant’s third, fourth, fifth, six, seventh, eighth and ninth 

assignments all stem from claimed errors that occurred during trial. 

However, the scope of this appeal is limited to issues arising at the resentencing hearing, which we have already addressed. State v. Fischer, at 

paragraph four of the syllabus. Res judicata applies to all other aspects of the 

merits of the conviction, including the determination of guilt and the lawful 

elements of the ensuing sentence. Fischer at paragraph three of the syllabus. 

Accordingly, we reject Appellant's third through ninth assignments of error. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR X 
Washington App. Nos. 10CA5 and 10CA13 13

{¶18} In his tenth pro se assignment of error, Appellant contends that 

the trial court erred when it failed to appoint counsel for his direct appeal 

from his re-sentencing. Appellant further argues in the body of this 

assignment of error that he was not advised of his appellate rights at all 

during his re-sentencing hearing, as required by Crim.R. 32(B). Although 

Crim.R. 32(B) does in fact obligate the trial court to notify defendants of 

their right to appeal their convictions, as well as their right to have counsel 

appointed in the event they cannot afford counsel, because Appellant has 

filed the within appeal, and was appointed counsel in relation thereto, he has 

suffered no prejudice as a result of the trial court’s error. State v. Inman, 

Ross App. No. 10CA3176, 2011-Ohio-3438, ¶ 4. Thus, although the trial 

court erred in failing to provide these notifications at Appellant’s resentencing hearing, the error was harmless. Id. at ¶ 5.3

 Accordingly, 

Appellant’s tenth pro se assignment of error is overruled. 

CASE NO. 10CA13 LEGAL ANALYSIS 

ANDERS BRIEF BY COUNSEL AND PRO SE BRIEF 

{¶19} Appellant's counsel has filed an Anders brief in this action. 

Under Anders v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, counsel 

may ask permission to withdraw from a case when counsel has 

conscientiously examined the record, can discern no meritorious claims for 

 

3

 Although the error was harmless and Appellant suffered no prejudice, because this matter is being 

remanded with instructions for the trial court to reinstate Appellant’s original sex offender classification, it 

would be prudent for the trial court to provide these notifications at that time. 
Washington App. Nos. 10CA5 and 10CA13 14

appeal, and has determined the case to be wholly frivolous. Id. at 744; State 

v. Adkins, Gallia App. No. 03CA27, 2004-Ohio-3627, at ¶ 8. Counsel's 

request to withdraw must be accompanied with a brief identifying anything 

in the record that could arguably support the client's appeal. Anders at 744; 

Adkins at ¶ 8. Further, counsel must provide the defendant with a copy of the 

brief and allow sufficient time for the defendant to raise any other issues, if 

the defendant chooses to do so. Id. 

{¶20} Once counsel has satisfied these requirements, the appellate 

court must conduct a full examination of the trial court proceedings to 

determine if meritorious issues exist. If the appellate court determines that 

the appeal is frivolous, it may grant counsel's request to withdraw and 

address the merits of the case without affording the appellant the assistance 

of counsel. Id. If, however, the court finds the existence of meritorious 

issues, it must afford the appellant assistance of counsel before deciding the 

merits of the case. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; State v. Duran, Ross App. No. 

06CA2919, 2007-Ohio-2743, at ¶ 7. 

{¶21} In the current action, Appellant's counsel concludes the appeal 

is wholly frivolous and has asked permission to withdraw. Pursuant to 

Anders, counsel has filed a brief raising one potential assignment of error for 

this court to consider. The potential assignment of error contends that the 

trial court erred by conducting a re-sentencing hearing because the State of 
Washington App. Nos. 10CA5 and 10CA13 15

Ohio failed to exercise its appeal of right regarding the trial court’s failure to 

impose mandatory five-year post release control, thereby forfeiting its right 

to such a hearing. Appellant’s counsel notes that Appellant raised this 

argument in his motion for post conviction relief, which was denied by the 

trial court. 

{¶22} We agree with Appellant's counsel that an appeal based upon 

this question alone would be wholly frivolous. As noted above, the Supreme 

Court of Ohio recently provided in State v. Fischer, supra, at paragraph one 

of the syllabus, “[a] sentence that does not include the statutorily mandated 

term of postrelease control is void, is not precluded from appellate review by 

principles of res judicata, and may be reviewed at any time, on direct appeal 

or by collateral attack. (Emphasis added). 

{¶23} Here, Appellant’s original sentence did not properly impose a 

mandatory five-year term of post release control. The State filed a motion to 

return Appellant for a re-sentencing hearing on December 8, 2009, and 

Appellant was re-sentenced on January 21, 2010. At the re-sentencing 

hearing the trial court, among other things,4

 imposed a mandatory five-year 

term of post release control and a re-sentencing entry issued on January 27, 

2010, reflected this. We believe that the holding in Fischer authorizes such 

procedure and we find no error by the trial court. As such, we find this 

 

4

 Appellant has alleged additional errors by the trial court in the direct appeal from his re-sentencing, which 

we have already addressed above under case number 10CA5. 
Washington App. Nos. 10CA5 and 10CA13 16

potential assignment of error to be wholly frivolous. However, because 

Appellant has also raised a pro se assignment of error, our analysis does not 

end here. 

{¶24} In his pro se brief, Appellant contends that the trial court erred 

in dismissing his petition for post conviction relief when the court failed to 

inform him of his constitutional right to appeal, to counsel, and documents at 

state’s expense after re-sentencing for a post release control error. The 

State’s brief does not address this issue raised by Appellant. 

{¶25} If a petition for post conviction relief does not allege facts 

which, if proved, would entitle the prisoner to relief, the trial court may so 

find and summarily dismiss the petition. State v. Perry (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 

175, 226 N.E.2d 104, paragraph two of the syllabus. Here, Appellant has 

failed to allege facts in his petition for post conviction relief that entitle him 

to relief. Appellant’s petition for post conviction relief alleges that, at the 

January 21, 2010, resentencing hearing, the trial court failed to notify him of 

his right to appeal as well as his right to court appointed counsel. Under 

Crim.R. 32(B), a trial court is required to notify the defendant of his 

appellate rights. Following the January 21, 2010, re-sentencing hearing, the 

trial court issued its January 27, 2010, entry. Appellant timely appealed the 

January 27, 2010, entry, which created case number 10CA5. Appellant also 

filed an appeal from the trial court’s later denial of his petition for post 
Washington App. Nos. 10CA5 and 10CA13 17

conviction relief, which created case number 10CA13. (We have 

consolidated case number 10CA5 and case number 10CA13.) 

{¶26} The record demonstrates that we ultimately appointed counsel 

to represent Appellant on appeal for both case number 10CA5 and case 

number 10CA13. Therefore, even assuming the trial court failed to notify 

Appellant of his appellate rights as required under Crim.R. 32(B), Appellant 

has not suffered any prejudice. See State v. Thomas, Cuyahoga App. No. 

94788, 2011-Ohio-214, ¶ 38 (“Although the trial court in this case failed to 

advise Thomas of his appellate rights under Crim.R. 32, we find * * * the 

error here to be harmless. * * * Here, this court granted Thomas’s motion for 

delayed appeal, and subsequently appointed appellate counsel to represent 

him in the appeal. Accordingly, we conclude that any argument relative to 

the omission is moot.”); State v. Middleton, Preble App. No. CA2004-01-

003, 2005-Ohio-681, ¶ 25 (“Regardless of whether the common pleas court 

committed error with regard to Crim.R. 32(B)(2) and (3) appellant has failed 

to show prejudice. Appellant was appointed counsel and filed an appeal 

within the requisite time period. Accordingly, there was no reversible error 

in this case.”). 

{¶27} Accordingly, because Appellant did not suffer prejudice from 

any alleged error by the trial court, he has failed to allege any facts in his 
Washington App. Nos. 10CA5 and 10CA13 18

petition for post conviction relief that would entitle him to relief. As a 

result, summary denial of Appellant’s petition was proper. 

{¶28} Based upon the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court did 

not err in denying Appellant’s petition for post conviction relief and 

therefore we affirm the decision of the trial court in case number 10CA13. 

Further, having found the issue raised by appellate counsel to be wholly 

frivolous, and having found no merit to Appellant’s pro se assignment of 

error, we hereby grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND 

REMANDED IN PART.

Kline, J., concurring in part. 

{¶29} I concur in judgment and opinion with the resolution of Case 

No. 10CA5, and the Anders portion of Case No. 10CA13. I respectfully 

concur in judgment only with the portion of Case No. 10CA13 that 

addresses Thompson’s argument regarding the trial court’s failure to notify 

him of his appeal rights. 

{¶30} Under R.C. 2953.21(C), the trial court was required to issue 

findings of fact and conclusions of law when it dismissed Thompson’s 

petition for post-conviction relief without a hearing. However, “[a] trial 

court need not discuss every issue raised by appellant or engage in an 

elaborate and lengthy discussion in its findings of fact and conclusions of 

law.” State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279, 291, 714 N.E.2d 905 (1999). 
Washington App. Nos. 10CA5 and 10CA13 19

The reasons to require findings of fact and conclusions of law 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.” 

State v. Mapson, 1 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 438 N.E.2d 910 (1982). 

{¶31} In my view, the April 21, 2010 entry satisfied this standard. In 

his petition for post-conviction relief, Thompson claimed that the trial court 

had no authority to resentence him. The April 21, 2010 entry explains why 

the trial court concluded that Thompson’s argument lacked merit. 

Thompson also claimed that the trial court failed to notify him of his appeal 

rights at resentencing. Although the entry did not address this issue, the 

omission is harmless because the record is clear that Thompson suffered no 

prejudice from the failure to notify him of his appeal rights. See generally 

State v. Ashworth, 5th Dist. No. 99-CA-60, 1999 WL 1071742, * 3 (Nov. 8, 

1999) (holding that trial court’s failure “to specifically rule upon” a claim 

for relief in a petition for post-conviction relief was “harmless”). Thus, I 

conclude that the April 21, 2010 entry satisfied the trial court’s obligation to 

submit findings of fact and conclusions of law under R.C. 2953.21(C). 

McFarland, J., dissenting, in part. 

{¶32} I concur in judgment and opinion with the resolution of case 

number 10CA5, as well as the Anders portion of case number 10CA13. 
Washington App. Nos. 10CA5 and 10CA13 20

However, I respectfully dissent from the resolution of the pro se assignment 

of error in case number 10CA13, as follows. 

 {¶33} As set forth in the principal opinion, if a petition for postconviction relief does not allege facts which, if proved, would entitle the 

prisoner to relief, the trial court may so find and summarily dismiss the 

petition. State v. Perry (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 226 N.E.2d 104, 

paragraph two of the syllabus. However, if the petition does allege such 

facts, but the files and records of the case negate the existence of facts 

sufficient to entitle the prisoner to relief, the trial court may so find and 

summarily dismiss the petition without a hearing. In such an instance, 

however, the finding of the court should specify the portions of the files and 

records which negate the existence of alleged facts that would otherwise 

entitle the prisoner to relief. Id. at paragraph three of the syllabus. In those 

instances, the court must make findings of fact and conclusions of law 

explicit enough to give the appellate court a clear understanding of the basis 

of the trial court's decision and to enable it to determine the ground on 

which the trial court reached its decision. State v. Chafin, Franklin App. 

No. 97APA09-1181, 1998 WL 240498; citing State v. Clemmons (1989), 58 

Ohio App.3d 45, 568 N.E.2d 705. 

{¶34} Here, in my view, Appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief 

alleged facts related to the trial court’s failure to advise him of his appellate 
Washington App. Nos. 10CA5 and 10CA13 21

rights, which on their face entitled him to relief. It is only after a review of 

the files and records, which indicate that Appellant filed an appeal and was 

appointed counsel on appeal in spite of the court’s failure to issue the 

appellate right notifications, that we can conclude that facts exist which 

negate Appellant’s entitlement to relief. In this circumstance, Perry

provides that the trial court may summarily dismiss the petition, but only 

after making findings of fact and conclusions of law explicit enough to give 

the appellate court a clear understanding of the basis of the trial court's 

decision and to enable it to determine the ground on which the trial court 

reached its decision. 

{¶35} A review of the record here indicates that the basis of 

Appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief was twofold. In overruling the 

petition, the trial court did not address Appellant’s argument that he was 

entitled to post conviction relief as a result of the trial court’s failure to 

inform him of his right to appeal. Instead, the entry denying the petition 

only addressed Appellant’s argument that because the State did not appeal 

the post release control error after the original sentencing, it had waived the 

issue and post release control could not now be imposed. Thus, as the trial 

court did not even address this issue, it did not specify the portion of the files 

or records which would negate the existence of alleged facts that would 

otherwise entitle Appellant to relief as to this particular claim. 
Washington App. Nos. 10CA5 and 10CA13 22

{¶36} Although this assignment of error has arguably been rendered 

moot in light of the disposition of Appellant’s tenth pro se assignment of 

error contained in his appeal of Case No. 10CA5, in my view, this issue is 

one for the trial court to determine on remand and not for this Court to 

address for the first time on appeal. Further, it should be noted that Thomas

and Middleton, cases relied upon by the majority for the proposition that 

Appellant suffered no actual prejudice by the trial court’s failure to issue 

appellate right advisements, both involve direct appeals from an original 

conviction, rather than an appeal from a petition for post-conviction relief. 

In light of the procedural posture of case number 10CA13, which involves 

an appeal from a denial of a petition for post-conviction relief, I believe the 

analysis outlined in State v. Perry to be applicable, rather than that set forth 

in Thomas and Middleton. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the 

resolution of Appellant’s pro se assignment of error contained in case 

number 10CA13.
Washington App. Nos. 10CA5 and 10CA13 23
Washington App. Nos. 10CA5 and 10CA13 24

JUDGMENT ENTRY

It is ordered that the JUDGMENT BE AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN 

PART, AND REMANDED IN PART and that the Appellee and Appellant split costs 

herein taxed.

 The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

 It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the 

Washington County Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution. 

 IF A STAY OF EXECUTION OF SENTENCE AND RELEASE UPON BAIL 

HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY GRANTED BY THE TRIAL COURT OR THIS COURT, it 

is temporarily continued for a period not to exceed sixty days upon the bail previously 

posted. The purpose of a continued stay is to allow Appellant to file with the Supreme 

Court of Ohio an application for a stay during the pendency of proceedings in that court. 

If a stay is continued by this entry, it will terminate at the earlier of the expiration of the 

sixty day period, or the failure of the Appellant to file a notice of appeal with the 

Supreme Court of Ohio in the forty-five day appeal period pursuant to Rule II, Sec. 2 of 

the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Additionally, if the Supreme Court 

of Ohio dismisses the appeal prior to expiration of sixty days, the stay will terminate as of 

the date of such dismissal. 

 A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of 

the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

Exceptions. 

Kline, J.: Concurs in Judgment and Opinion as to Case No. 10CA5 and the Anders 

Portion in Case No. 10CA13; Concurs in Judgment with Opinion regarding appeal rights 

notification in Case No. 10CA13. 

Harsha, J.: Concurs in Judgment only. 

McFarland, J.: Dissents, in part, with Opinion. 

 For the Court, 

 BY: _________________________ 

 Matthew W. McFarland, Judge 

 BY: _________________________ 

 Roger L. Kline, Judge 

BY: _________________________ 

 William H. Harsha, Judge 

NOTICE TO COUNSEL 

 Pursuant to Local Rule No. 14, this document constitutes a final judgment 

entry and the time period for further appeal commences from the date of filing with 

the clerk.