COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                            No. 73749
STATE OF OHIO                 :
                              :       JOURNAL ENTRY
          Plaintiff-appellee  :
                              :           AND
     vs.                      :
                              :         OPINION
ROBERT G. GIRTS               :
                              :
          Defendant-appellant :
                              :
                              :
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT          :     DECEMBER 10, 1998
 OF DECISION                  :
                              :
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS      :    Civil appeal from
                              :    Court of Common Pleas
                              :    Case No. CR-293327
                              :
JUDGMENT                      :    DISMISSED
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION        :
APPEARANCES:
For plaintiff-appellee:            For defendant-appellant:
GEORGE J. SADD, ESQ.
Assistant County Prosecutor
The Justice Center, 8th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, OH 44113
ROBERT M. GIRTS, PRO SE
Inmate No. 274-569
P.O. Box 901
Leavittsburg, OH 44430-0901
                               -2-
JOHN T. PATTON, J.:
     In August 1995, a jury found petitioner Robert G. Girts guilty
of one count of aggravated murder.  We affirmed the conviction in
State v. Girts (1997), 121 Ohio App.3d 539.
     In January 1996, before this court issued an opinion in  the
direct appeal from the conviction, petitioner filed a petition for
postconviction relief with the court which he supplemented  once.
The petition, as amended, primarily raised claims of  ineffective
assistance  of  counsel  due  to  counsel's  alleged  failure  to
investigate adequately the facts and witnesses, counsel's  advice
that  petitioner not  testify in  his own  behalf, and  counsel's
failure to have all proceedings recorded.  In findings of fact and
conclusions  of law,  the court  held that  petitioner failed  to
establish  an ineffective  assistance  of counsel  claim  because
counsel's decisions were  arguably trial  tactics and  petitioner
failed to  submit sufficient  documentary evidence  to show  what
prejudice may have ensued from the alleged errors.
     The second  assignment of error is  dispositive   the  court
erred by failing to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law
on the supplemental petition for postconviction relief.  The court
granted petitioner leave to file a supplemental petition pursuant
to R.C. 2953.21(F).  Petitioner filed an amended claim that raised
questions about counsel's alleged failure to have all proceedings
recorded pursuant to Crim.R. 22 and counsel's failure to ask  the
court  to hold a  hearing on the  admissibility of the  coroner's
                               -3-
testimony. The court's findings of fact and conclusions of law did
not address either of these supplemental issues.
     When a trial court denies a petition for postconviction relief
without a  hearing, the  court must  issue findings  of fact  and
conclusions of law.  See R.C. 2953.21(C).  Those 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 to enable it to determine the grounds on which
the trial court reached its decision.  State v. Lester (1975), 41
Ohio St.2d 51, paragraph  two of the syllabus; State v.  Clemmons
(1989), 58  Ohio App.3d  45.  A  decision or  order dismissing  a
petition for postconviction relief is not a final appealable order
until the  trial court files the  requisite findings of fact  and
conclusions of law. See State v. Lester (1975), 41 Ohio St.2d  at
55; State v. Mapson (1982), 1 Ohio St.3d 217, 218.
     Here,  the court's  failure to  render any  findings on  the
supplemental  petition violated  its  statutory duty  under  R.C.
2953.21(C), so we lack a  final appealable order.  We remand  the
matter for findings  of fact and conclusions  of law only on  the
supplemental petition.
     Dismissed.
     It is ordered  that said appellee  recover of appellant  its
costs herein.
     It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to
carry this judgment into execution.
                               -4-
     A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the  mandate
pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, A.J.
JAMES D. SWEENEY, J.,   CONCURS.
                                             JUDGE
                                          JOHN T. PATTON
   N.B.   This entry is an announcement of the court's  decision.
See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27.  This  decision
will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the
court pursuant to App.R. 22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration
with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10)
days of the announcement of the court's decision.  The time period
for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the
journalization of  this court's announcement  of decision by  the
.