State v. Lewis

[Cite as State v. Lewis, 2026-Ohio-1202.]


                               COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                              EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                 COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA


STATE OF OHIO,                                    :

                 Plaintiff-Appellee,              :         No. 115827

                 v.                               :

SOLOMON LEWIS,                                    :

                 Defendant-Appellant.             :

                 ______________________________________

                                JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                 JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND REMANDED
                 RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: April 2, 2026


             Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
                                Case No. CR-17-615253-A


                                            Appearances:

                 Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
                 Attorney, and Kristen Hatcher, Assistant Prosecuting
                 Attorney, for appellee.

                 Robinson & Brandt, P.S.C., and Jeffrey M. Brandt, for
                 appellant.


ANITA LASTER MAYS, J.:

                   Defendant-appellant Solomon Lewis (“Lewis”) appeals from the trial

court’s denial of his petition for postconviction relief. Lewis argues that the trial
court erred by denying his timely petition for postconviction relief without issuing

findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by R.C. 2953.21. For the reasons

that follow, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand the matter for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion.

   I.     Procedural and Factual Background

               Following transfer from juvenile court, Lewis was indicted in an

eight-count indictment charging one count of attempted murder, four counts of

felonious assault, one count of discharging a firearm on or near prohibited premises,

one count of improper discharge of a firearm into a habitation, and one count of

improper handling of firearms in a motor vehicle. Each count carried various

firearm specifications, and the attempted-murder and felonious-assault counts

carried criminal gang activity specifications.

               Pursuant to a plea agreement, Lewis pleaded guilty to attempted

murder with one- and three-year firearm specifications and a criminal gang activity

specification, two counts of felonious assault each with a one-year firearm

specification and a criminal gang activity specification, and improper discharge of a

firearm into a habitation with a one-year firearm specification. The trial court

imposed an aggregate prison sentence of 18 years.

               On direct appeal, this court vacated Lewis’s conviction for improper

discharge into a habitation in light of the Supreme Court of Ohio’s decision in State

v. Smith, 2022-Ohio-274. See State v. Lewis, 2022-Ohio-2357, ¶ 8-9 (8th Dist.).

(vacating the improper discharge count and remanding for resentencing). On
remand, the trial court resentenced Lewis absent the vacated count of improper

discharge into a habitation, again imposing an aggregate prison term of 18 years.

               On December 14 and 15, 2022, Lewis, pro se, filed petitions for

postconviction relief. In August 2025, through counsel, Lewis filed additional

briefing in support of the petition. On October 30, 2025, the trial court denied relief

by journal entry.

               In its October 30, 2025 entry, the trial court stated, in relevant part,

that “[u]pon review of the apetition [sic], and the record/file, defendnat [sic] has

failed to establish that he is entitled to relief, there fore [sic], motion is hereby

denied.” The trial court did not issue findings of fact or conclusions of law explaining

the basis for its ruling. This appeal followed. Lewis raises one assignment of error

for review.

   II.    Assignment of Error

               The trial court erred when it denied appellant’s petition for

postconviction relief without issuing the findings of fact and conclusions of law

required by R.C. 2953.21(H).

   III.   Standard of Review

               Whether the trial court complied with the statutory requirement to

issue findings of fact and conclusions of law under R.C. 2953.21 presents a question

of law that we review de novo. See State ex rel. Penland v. Dinkelacker, 2020-Ohio-

3774, ¶ 28; State v. Baldwin, 2025-Ohio-1260, ¶ 13 (8th Dist.).
   IV.    Law and Analysis

               Postconviction relief is a collateral civil attack on a criminal judgment

and is governed by R.C. 2953.21. State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279, 281 (1999).

The trial court’s obligation to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law depends

on the timeliness of the petition. When a petition is untimely and no exception

applies, the trial court has no duty to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law.

See State ex rel. Kimbrough v. Greene, 2002-Ohio-7042, ¶ 6. By contrast, when a

trial court dismisses or denies a timely petition for postconviction relief, it must

make and file findings of fact and conclusions of law. R.C. 2953.21(D) and (H). See

also State v. Atahiya, 2021-Ohio-1488, ¶ 25 (8th Dist.).

               The record reflects that Lewis’s petition was timely filed. Accordingly,

when the trial court denied relief, it was required to issue findings of fact and

conclusions of law sufficient to apprise Lewis of the basis for its ruling and to permit

meaningful appellate review. See Penland at ¶ 20.

               Here, the trial court denied Lewis’s petition in a one-sentence entry

stating only that upon review of the petition and the record, Lewis had not

established entitlement to relief. The entry does not identify the claims presented,

the legal standards applied, or the factual determinations underlying the ruling.

Thus, we cannot discern the trial court’s reasoning or conduct meaningful appellate

review. See Baldwin at ¶ 20-22.

               The State, in its “Notice of Conceded Error,” acknowledges that

R.C. 2953.21 requires the trial court to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law
when dismissing or denying a timely petition for postconviction relief and concedes

that the trial court’s entry in this case is insufficient. The State therefore concedes

Lewis’s sole assignment of error.

               Although we are not bound to accept the State’s concession, we agree

that the trial court’s entry does not comply with R.C. 2953.21(H) and existing

precedent. Without adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law, Lewis cannot

understand the basis for the denial of his petition and this court cannot meaningfully

review the trial court’s decision.

               Accordingly, we sustain Lewis’s sole assignment of error.           The

appropriate remedy is to reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand this matter

so that the trial court may enter a new judgment that includes findings of fact and

conclusions of law that comply with R.C. 2953.21(H).

   V.     Disposition

               The judgment of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas is

reversed, and this matter is remanded for the trial court to issue findings of fact and

conclusions of law in support of its ruling on Lewis’s timely petition for

postconviction relief in accordance with R.C. 2953.21(H) and this opinion.

     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 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.

___________________________
ANITA LASTER MAYS, JUDGE

MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, A.J., and
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR