COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                            No. 76671
STATE OF OHIO                 :
                              :       JOURNAL ENTRY
          Plaintiff-appellee  :
                              :           AND
     vs.                      :
                              :         OPINION
KEMMIT WOOLFOLK               :
                              :
          Defendant-appellant :
                              :
                              :
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT          :       AUGUST 10, 2000
 OF DECISION                  :
                              :
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS      :    Civil appeal from
                              :    Court of Common Pleas
                              :    Case No. CR-213189
                              :
JUDGMENT                      :    APPEAL DISMISSED
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION        :
APPEARANCES:
For plaintiff-appellee:            For defendant-appellant:
WILLIAM D. MASON
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
LISA REITZ WILLIAMSON
Assistant County Prosecutor
8th Floor - Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio  44113
DAVID L. DOUGHTEN
4403 St. Clair Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio  44103
                               -2-
JOHN T. PATTON, J.:
     Petitioner Kemmit Woolfolk, Jr. pleaded guilty to one count of
aggravated murder, with a felony murder specification.  The court
sentenced  him to a  term of life  with parole eligibility  after
twenty years. In this postconviction proceeding, petitioner claims
he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because counsel
led him to believe that his term of incarceration would be subject
to  good time,  meaning he would be eligible for parole in twelve
years.  The court denied the petition without a hearing,  finding
that petitioner's  self serving and conclusory statements  failed
to set forth sufficient operative facts to show his entitlement to
relief.
     This appeal is taken from the court's June 15, 1999 findings
of fact and conclusions of law.  However, the record contains  an
earlier set of findings of fact and conclusions of law dated August
27, 1997.  The  earlier journal entry addresses the petition  for
postconviction relief in full and disposes of all claims.  There is
no apparent reason for the court to issue another set of findings
of fact  and conclusions  of law    notably,  petitioner made  no
argument that he did not receive the first set of findings of fact
and conclusions of law.  In fact, the court appeared to issue the
first set of findings of fact and conclusions of law in response to
petitioner's request for those findings.
     Postconviction proceedings  are civil in  nature.  State  v.
Milanovich(1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 46, 49.  Appeals from court action
on postconviction  petitions are  governed by  App.R. 4(A)  which
                               -3-
requires all civil appeals to be filed within thirty days of  the
later of entry of the judgment  or order appealed or, in a  civil
case, service of the notice of judgment and its entry if service is
not made on the party within the three day period in Rule 58(B) of
the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure.
     The August 29, 1997 findings of fact and conclusions of  law
fully addressed all issues raised in the petition.  In fact,  the
June 15, 1999 findings of fact and conclusions of law are substan-
tively  similar to  the  August 29,  1997  findings of  fact  and
conclusions of law.  There being no meaningful difference between
the two entries, and there being no apparent reason for the court
to reissue another set of findings of fact and conclusions of law,
we find that an appeal should have been brought from the August 29,
1997 judgment entry.  Because petitioner failed to file his appeal
within thirty days  of the August 29,  1997 findings of fact  and
conclusions of law, we dismiss the appeal as untimely.
     Appeal dismissed.
                               -4-
     It  is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its  costs
herein taxed.
     A certified copy of  this entry shall constitute the mandate
pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
DIANE KARPINSKI, P.J.,
LEO M. SPELLACY, J., CONCUR.
                                             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. 22.  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
clerk  per App.R.  22(E).   See,  also S.Ct.Prac.R.  II,  Section
2(A)(1).
 
.