[Cite as State v. Hostacky, 2015-Ohio-419.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio 

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 101282

STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE 

vs. 

DENNIS J. HOSTACKY

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT: 

DISMISSED 

Civil Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CR-12-567826-A 

BEFORE: Keough, J., Jones, P.J., and E.T. Gallagher, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: February 5, 2015 
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

Robert L. Tobik 

Cuyahoga County Public Defender 

By: Jeffrey Gamso 

Assistant Public Defender 

310 Lakeside Avenue, Suite 200 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Timothy J. McGinty 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

By: Mary McGrath 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 

The Justice Center, 8th Floor 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J.: 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Dennis J. Hostacky, appeals the trial court’s decision denying 

his petition for postconviction relief. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the appeal for lack 

of a final, appealable order. 

{¶2} In May 2013 and following a bifurcated jury and bench trial, Hostacky was 

convicted of kidnapping, aggravated robbery, theft, carrying concealed weapons, having weapons 

while under disability, and one- and three-year firearm specifications. A total prison term of 

eight years was imposed. 

{¶3} Hostacky filed a direct appeal with this court raising four assignments of error, 

including one for ineffective assistance of counsel. State v. Hostacky, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 

100003, 2014-Ohio-2975 

{¶4} While his direct appeal was pending, Hostacky filed a timely petition for 

postconviction relief contending that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to (1) conduct a 

reasonable and timely investigation, (2) call a necessary and available witness of whom he was 

aware and who was available and willing to testify, and (3) repeatedly and consistently failing to 

object to highly improper and prejudicial testimony and argument. Attached to his petition were 

affidavits by his ex-wife, Christy Hostacky, and his aunt, Sandra Hostacky. 

{¶5} The trial court summarily dismissed Hostacky’s petition without conducting a 

hearing or issuing findings of fact and conclusions of law. 

{¶6} Thereafter, this court affirmed Hostacky’s convictions and sentence in part, reversed 

in part, and remanded the case to the trial court for the limited purpose of merging the two 

weapons while under disability counts for sentencing. Hostacky at ¶ 1. 
{¶7} Hostacky appeals from the trial court’s decision summarily denying his petition for 

postconviction relief, asserting the following assignment of error: 

The trial court committed error when it denied the petition for post conviction 

relief without holding a hearing as the petition was based on evidence dehors the 

record, which if believed, was sufficient to demonstrate that trial counsel’s 

performance was objectively deficient, that the deficiencies undermined the 

confidence in the verdict, and that but for the deficient performance there is a 

reasonable probability that there would have been a different outcome at trial, that 

Mr. Hostacky was accordingly denied his constitutionally protected right to the 

effective assistance of counsel, and that his conviction was therefore void or 

voidable. 

{¶8} The sole issue raised and identified by Hostacky is whether the trial court erred in 

failing to conduct a hearing on his petition. However, because the trial court did not issue 

findings of fact and conclusions of law, we dismiss the appeal because the trial court’s journal 

entry does not constitute a final, appealable order. 

{¶9} R.C. 2953.21(C) clearly provides that if the court dismisses or denies a timely 

petition for postconviction relief, the trial court shall issue findings of fact and conclusions of 

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

Court held that because of the mandates of R.C. 2953.21, “a judgment entry filed without such 

findings is incomplete and it thus does not commence the running of the time period for filing an 

appeal therefrom.” The court stated: 

* * * The obvious reasons for requiring findings 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 

(1966), 8 Ohio St.2d 21, 22 [37 O.O. 2d 357]. The exercise of findings and 

conclusions are essential in order to prosecute an appeal. Without them, a 

petitioner knows no more than [that] 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. 

Id. at 219. The court recognized that the findings are “a necessary and essential part of a 

judgment denying postconviction relief.” Id. 

A holding to the contrary would not only defeat the purposes of R.C. 2953.21, it 

would also serve to increase the workload of the already over-burdened and 

overcrowded courts of appeal and further tax the already scarce state resources. 

Requiring a petitioner to perfect an appeal without having findings before him 

would deter judicial economy, for it would guarantee two trips to the appellate 

court — one to force the findings and another to review the decision on the merits. 

Id. See also State ex rel. Ferrell v. Clark, 13 Ohio St.3d 3, 469 N.E.2d 843 (1984) 

{¶10} Relying on Mapson, this court has previously held that a judgment entry denying or 

dismissing a timely petition for postconviction relief that does not contain findings of fact or 

conclusions of law is not a final, appealable order. See State v. Spencer, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 

81035, 2003-Ohio-287, State v. Loper, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 81297, 81400, 81878, 

2003-Ohio-3213, In re W.H., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 94160, 2010-Ohio-2898. 

{¶11} In this case, Hostacky’s petition was timely filed. The trial court summarily 

denied the petition without preparing findings of fact or conclusions of law as required pursuant 

to R.C. 2953.21(C). Accordingly, the trial court’s journal entry is not a final, appealable order, 

and we lack jurisdiction to consider the appeal. 
{¶12} Dismissed. 

It is ordered that the parties share equally in the 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 common pleas 

court to carry this judgment into execution. 

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

Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, JUDGE 

LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J., and 

EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR