Court Opinion

ID: 9959308
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-11 15:09:10.473888+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:07.590733
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Dudas, 2024-Ohio-1358.]

                               COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                             EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO,                                    :

                 Plaintiff-Appellee,              :
                                                             No. 111875
                 v.                               :

MICHAEL DUDAS,                                    :

                 Defendant-Appellant.             :

                               JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                 JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND REMANDED
                 RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: April 11, 2024

            Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
                               Case No. CR-20-650250-A

                                            Appearances:

                 Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
                 Attorney, and Daniel T. Van, Assistant Prosecuting
                 Attorney, for appellee.

                 Michael Dudas, pro se.

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, P.J.:

                   This case was to returned to this court after the Ohio Supreme Court

reversed our decision in State v. Dudas, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111875, 2023-Ohio-

535, determined that the petition for postconviction relief filed by defendant-

appellant Michael Dudas was timely under R.C. 2953.21(A)(2)(a) and remanded the
case to this court with instructions to consider Dudas’ assignments of error. State

v. Dudas, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-775, ¶ 21.

               Dudas, pro se, appeals the denial of his petition for postconviction

relief. He contends that the trial court erred in denying his petition without making

findings of fact and conclusions of law and that the trial court should have granted

his petition based on his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial

misconduct. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the trial court and remand for

the trial court to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to R.C.

2953.21.

      Procedural History and Factual Background

               On January 19, 2021, Dudas pled guilty to one count of aggravated

murder (an unclassified felony), one count of aggravated robbery (a first-degree

felony) and two counts of misuse of a credit card (a fifth-degree felony). On

January 20, 2021, the trial court sentenced Dudas to an aggregate sentence of 28 to

29.5 years to life: 25 years to life on the aggravated murder count, an indefinite

sentence of three to four-and-one-half years on the aggravated robbery count (to be

served consecutively to the sentence on the aggravated murder count) and one year

on each of the misuse of a credit card counts (to be served concurrently to each other

and concurrently with the sentences on the other counts). On appeal, this court

affirmed Dudas’ convictions and sentences. State v. Dudas, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.

110573, 2022-Ohio-931.
              On July 14, 2022, Dudas filed, pro se, a “petition to vacate or set aside

judgment of conviction or sentence” pursuant to R.C. 2953.21 in which he argued

that he was denied (1) the effective assistance of trial counsel and (2) due process

based on “prosecutorial misconduct” before he entered his guilty pleas. On July 20,

2022, the trial court summarily denied Dudas’ petition for postconviction relief

without a hearing.

              Dudas appealed, raising the following four assignments of error for

review:

                         Assignment of Error One:
      The court abuse of [sic] discretion and erred in issuing inadequate and
      erroneous findings of fact and conclusion [sic] of law in regard to
      petitioner Mr. Dudas[’] petition for postconviction relief.

                           Assignment of Error Two:
      The court of [sic] appointed counsel * * * committed ineffective
      assistance of counsel before the appellant, Mr. Dudas, entered a plea of
      guilty when counsel’s [sic] failed to request a competency evaluation to
      the court to contest Mr. Dudas[’] mental state which effective [sic] the
      defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily [sic] plea of guilty in
      violation of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and
      Section 10 Article I of the Ohio Constitution.

                          Assignment of Error Three:
      The court of [sic] appointed counsel * * * committed ineffective
      assistance of counsel before the appellant, Mr. Dudas, entered a plea of
      guilty under Crim.R. 11(A) to aggravated murder, R.C. 2901.01[,] and
      Mr. Dudas[’] plea was not made knowingly, intelligently and
      voluntarily and the defendant[’s] conviction of sentence was supported
      by Crim.R. 31(C) and R.C. 2945.74 lesser included offense of voluntary
      manslaughter R.C. 2903.03(A), in violation of the Sixth Amendment to
      [the] United States Constitution and Section 10 Article I of the Ohio
      Constitution.
                         Assignment of Error Four:
      The state of Ohio denied the appellant, Mr. Dudas, due process or
      alternatively committed prosecutorial misconduct before Mr. Dudas
      pleaded guilty to aggravated murder R.C. 2901.01 and the state
      withheld evidence from the defendant when the circumstance of Mr.
      Dudas[’] case warrant [sic] the state to amend indictment Crim.R. 7(D)
      to voluntary manslaughter, R.C. 2903.03(A), in violation of due
      process and [the] Fifth, Sixth, Eighth [and] Fourteenth Amendment[s]
      to the United States Constitution and Section 10 Article I of the Ohio
      Constitution.

Law and Analysis

               In his first assignment of error, Dudas argues that the trial court

abused its discretion in denying his timely filed petition for postconviction relief

without making findings of fact and conclusions of law, as required by R.C.

2953.21(H).

               Pursuant to R.C. 2953.21(A)(1)(a)(i), “[a]ny person who has been

convicted of a criminal offense * * * and who claims that there was such a denial or

infringement of the person’s rights as to render the judgment void or voidable under

the Ohio Constitution or the Constitution of the United States” “may file a petition

in the court that 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.”

               R.C. 2953.21(H) states that “[i]f the court does not find grounds for

granting relief, it shall make and file findings of fact and conclusions of law and shall

enter judgment denying relief on the petition.” Similarly, R.C. 2953.21(D) states

that “[i]f the court dismisses the petition, it shall make and file findings of fact and
conclusions of law with respect to such dismissal.” See also State ex rel. Penland v.

Dinkelacker, 162 Ohio St.3d 59, 2020-Ohio-3774, 164 N.E.3d 336, ¶ 20 (“It is true,

of course, that R.C. 2953.21 requires a trial court to issue findings of fact and

conclusions of law when dismissing or denying a postconviction-relief petition. * * *

And if a court fails to do so, its decision is subject to reversal on appeal.”).

               “The purpose of requiring findings of fact and conclusions of law is to

apprise the petitioner of the basis for the court’s disposition and to facilitate

meaningful appellate review.” State v. Maxwell, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 107758,

2020-Ohio-3027, ¶ 12. The findings of fact and conclusions of law should be

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

trial court’s decision and enable it to determine the grounds on which the trial court

reached its decision.” State v. Porter, 7th Dist. Belmont No. 20 BE 0033, 2021-

Ohio-4630, ¶ 19; see also State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279, 714 N.E.2d 905

(1999), paragraph three 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.”).

               The Ohio Supreme Court held that Dudas’ petition for postconviction

relief was timely. Dudas, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-775, at ¶ 21. Because his

petition for postconviction relief was timely and it was the first petition for

postconviction relief Dudas filed, the trial court was required to issue findings of fact
and conclusions of law, explaining the basis of its ruling. In this case, the trial court

did not make any findings of fact and conclusions of law; it denied Dudas’ petition

for postconviction relief summarily without stating its reasons for denying the

petition. We, therefore, sustain Dudas’ first assignment of error.

               The trial court’s decision is reversed and the matter is remanded with

instructions for the trial court to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law as

required by R.C. 2953.21. Based on our resolution of Dudas’ first assignment of

error, his second, third and fourth assignments of error are moot, and we will not

address them. See, e.g., State v. Reese, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2017-0017,

2017-Ohio-4263, ¶ 14.

               Judgment reversed and remanded.

      It is ordered that appellant recover from appellee 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

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 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.

                             _______                  __
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, PRESIDING JUDGE

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., and
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR