[Cite as State v. Lucien, 2023-Ohio-3128.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

PORTAGE COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

- vs -

BRANDON M. LUCIEN,

Defendant-Appellant.

CASE NO. 2023-P-0013

Civil Appeal from the

Court of Common Pleas

Trial Court No. 2020 CR 00875

O P I N I O N

Decided: September 5, 2023

Judgment: Reversed and remanded

Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, and Pamela J. Holder, Assistant 

Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Susan J. Moran, 1382 West 9th Street, Suite 410, Cleveland, OH 44113 (For DefendantAppellant).

MATT LYNCH, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Brandon M. Lucien, appeals the denial of his Motion 

for Post-Conviction Relief. For the following reasons, we reverse the decision of the court 

below and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

{¶2} Lucien is currently serving an aggregate indeterminate prison sentence of 

six to nine years following his convictions for Burglary and Abduction in the Portage 

County Court of Common Pleas. See State v. Lucien, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2021-P0107, 2022-Ohio-2464.
2

Case No. 2023-P-0013

{¶3} On November 4, 2022, Lucien filed a Motion for Post-Conviction Relief 

based on claims of actual innocence and ineffective assistance of counsel: “In this case, 

Brandon Lucien, was induced by [trial counsel] to plead guilty to crimes he did not commit, 

upon a promise that he would receive only a six-month inpatient drug treatment program 

in lieu of jail.” Affidavits and other documents were attached in support of the Motion.

{¶4} On March 14, 2023, the trial court denied Lucien’s Motion. The court’s 

Judgment Entry provides as follows:

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Post 

Conviction Relief. The Court has reviewed Defendant’s Motion, the 

State’s response, and the Defendant’s reply.

The Court finds that the petition for postconviction relief is 

without merit and is hereby dismissed. The request for hearing on 

the matter is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

{¶5} On March 31, 2023, Lucien filed a Notice of Appeal. On appeal, he raises 

the following assignments of error:

[1.] The trial court deprived Appellant of his right to due process

under the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to make adequate 

findings of fact and conclusions of law before denying Appellant’s 

Petition for Post-Conviction Relief Motion as required by R.C. 

2953.21.

[2.] The trial court erred by failing to hold a hearing on the Appellant’s 

Petition for Post-Conviction Relief.

[3.] The trial court erred by dismissing Appellant’s Petition based on 

the merits which alleged actual innocence and that Appellant was 

denied effective assistance of counsel, due process, and the right to 

a fair trial, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United 

States Constitution and Article I, Section 10, Ohio Constitution.

Lucien’s first assignment of error is determinative of this appeal and renders the other 

assignments of error moot.
3

Case No. 2023-P-0013

{¶6} “[A] trial court’s decision granting or denying a postconviction petition filed 

pursuant to R.C. 2953.21 should be upheld absent an abuse of discretion; a reviewing 

court should not overrule the trial court’s finding on a petition for postconviction relief that 

is supported by competent and credible evidence.” State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377, 

2006-Ohio-6679, 860 N.E.2d 77, ¶ 58.

{¶7} Ohio’s postconviction relief statute provides: “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(D).

{¶8} “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 the dismissal and as to the grounds for relief relied upon in the petition.” State v. 

Lester, 41 Ohio St.2d 51, 322 N.E.2d 656 (1975), paragraph two of the syllabus. “A trial 

court properly denies a petition for postconviction relief, made pursuant to R.C. 2953.21, 

and issues proper findings of fact and conclusions of law where such findings are 

comprehensive and pertinent to the issues presented, where the findings demonstrate 

the basis for the decision by the trial court, and where the findings are supported by the 

evidence.” State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279, 714 N.E.2d 905 (1999), paragraph three 

of the syllabus; State v. Blanton, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-3985, __ N.E.3d __, ¶ 24 

(“[i]f the trial court dismisses a petition on the basis that it fails to allege substantive 

grounds for relief, the court must include findings of fact and conclusions of law explaining 

the reasons for that decision”).
4

Case No. 2023-P-0013

{¶9} The Supreme Court of Ohio has explained the purpose of the rule as 

follows:

“‘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, 

358, 222 N.E.2d 313, 314]. 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.’” State ex rel. Carrion v. Harris

(1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 19, 530 N.E.2d 1330, 1330-1331, quoting 

State v. Mapson (1982), 1 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 1 OBR 240, 242, 438 

N.E.2d 910, 912.

Calhoun at 291.

{¶10} In the present case, the trial court’s summary dismissal of Lucien’s Motion 

fails to set forth findings of fact and conclusions of law explaining the reason for its 

decision. The State of Ohio concedes the error and acknowledges that the appropriate 

remedy “is a remand for a statutor[il]y compliant entry.” Brief of the State of Ohio at 3. 

See State v. Emerine, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2017-T-0091, 2018-Ohio-2458, ¶ 8 (“the 

record reveals and the state concedes that the trial court erred in failing to file findings of 

fact and conclusions of law when it denied appellant’s timely petition for postconviction 

relief without a hearing,” and, therefore, “we dismiss and remand for the required 

findings”).

{¶11} The first assignment of error is with merit. The second and third 

assignments are moot.

{¶12} On remand, the “trial court should give due deference to affidavits sworn to 

under oath and filed in support of the petition.” Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d at 284, 714 N.E.2d 
5

Case No. 2023-P-0013

905. Before deciding whether Lucien is entitled to a hearing on his Motion, the court must 

“determine whether there are substantive grounds for relief.” R.C. 2953.21(D); State v. 

Milanovich, 42 Ohio St.2d 46, 325 N.E.2d 540 (1975), paragraph one of the syllabus 

(“[w]here a claim raised by a petition for postconviction relief under R.C. 2953.21 is 

sufficient on its face to raise an issue that petitioner’s conviction is void or voidable on 

constitutional grounds, and the claim is one which depends upon factual allegations that 

cannot be determined by examination of the files and records of the case, the petition 

states a substantive ground for relief”). “A trial court that discounts the credibility of sworn 

affidavits should include an explanation of its basis for doing so in its findings of fact and 

conclusions of law, in order that meaningful appellate review may occur.” Calhoun at 

285.

{¶13} For the foregoing reasons, the denial of Lucien’s Motion for Post-Conviction 

Relief is reversed, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with 

this Opinion. Costs to be taxed against the appellee.

JOHN J. EKLUND, P.J.,

MARY JANE TRAPP, J.,

concur.