Case Title: Eubank v. Anderson

Citation: 2008-Ohio-4477

Docket Number: 20080933

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2008-09-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Eubank v. Anderson, 119 Ohio St.3d 349, 2008-Ohio-4477.] 
 
 
EUBANK, APPELLANT, v. ANDERSON, WARDEN, ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as Eubank v. Anderson, 119 Ohio St.3d 349, 2008-Ohio-4477.] 
Appeal from denial of motion for relief from judgment — Court of appeals did not 
abuse its discretion — Judgment affirmed. 
(No. 2008-0933 ─ Submitted August 26, 2008 ─ Decided September 10, 2008.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lorain County, No. 07CA009136. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment denying a motion for relief from 
a judgment dismissing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.  Because the court of 
appeals did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion, we affirm. 
{¶ 2} In 1985, appellant, James R. Eubank, was convicted of two counts 
of involuntary manslaughter and two counts of aggravated arson and was 
sentenced to prison.  In 2007, Eubank filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for 
Lorain County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel his release from prison.  The 
court of appeals dismissed the petition. 
{¶ 3} Nearly a year after the dismissal of his petition, Eubank filed a 
motion pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B)(1) for relief from the judgment dismissing his 
petition.  Eubank claimed that the court had made a “mistake” in its decision.  The 
court of appeals denied the motion. 
{¶ 4} In his appeal as of right from the court of appeals’ determination, 
we  must determine whether the court of appeals abused its discretion in denying 
Eubank’s motion for relief from judgment.  State ex rel. Russo v. Deters (1997), 
80 Ohio St.3d 152, 153, 684 N.E.2d 1237 (“In an appeal from a Civ.R. 60(B) 
determination, a reviewing court must determine whether the trial court abused its 
discretion”). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 5} The court of appeals did not abuse its discretion in denying 
Eubank’s motion for relief from judgment because in a timely appeal from the 
judgment dismissing the petition, Eubank could have raised his claim that the 
court of appeals erred in dismissing his habeas corpus petition.  Harris v. 
Anderson, 109 Ohio St.3d 101, 2006-Ohio-1934, 846 N.E.2d 43, ¶ 9.  “A Civ.R. 
60(B) motion for relief from judgment cannot be used as a substitute for a timely 
appeal * * * .”  Key v. Mitchell (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 89, 90-91, 689 N.E.2d 548. 
{¶ 6} Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of 
appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
James R. Eubank, pro se. 
 
Nancy Hardin Rogers, Attorney General, and Diane Mallory, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
______________________