Case Title: Grinnell v. Bowen

Citation: 2019-Ohio-1311

Docket Number: 2018-1038

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2019-04-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Grinnell v. Bowen, Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-1311.] 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 
advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested to 
promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 
South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 
formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 
the opinion is published. 
 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2019-OHIO-1311 
GRINNELL, APPELLANT, v. BOWEN, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Grinnell v. Bowen, Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-1311.] 
Habeas corpus—Petition fails to state a claim cognizable in habeas—Court of 
appeals’ dismissal affirmed. 
(No. 2018-1038—Submitted January 29, 2019—Decided April 10, 2019.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Mahoning County, No. 18 MA 0007, 
2018-Ohio-2791. 
________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, Timothy Grinnell, appeals the judgment of the Seventh 
District Court of Appeals dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.  We 
affirm. 
{¶ 2} Grinnell was convicted of two counts of aggravated murder and 
sentenced to prison for 20 years to life on each charge.  See State v. Grinnell, 112 
Ohio App.3d 124, 678 N.E.2d 231 (10th Dist.1996).  On January 29, 2018, he filed 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
2
a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against appellee, Richard A. Bowen Jr., 
warden of the Ohio State Penitentiary, alleging that the trial court never journalized 
an entry of conviction in his case, as required by Crim.R. 32. 
{¶ 3} The court of appeals granted Bowen’s motion to dismiss.  Grinnell 
appealed. 
{¶ 4} A trial court’s failure to comply with Crim.R. 32 does not call into 
question the court’s jurisdiction, nor does it entitle an inmate to immediate release 
from confinement.  Dunn v. Smith, 119 Ohio St.3d 364, 2008-Ohio-4565, 894 
N.E.2d 312, ¶ 10.  Grinnell’s allegations, even if true, do not state a claim 
cognizable in habeas corpus.  Durain v. Sheldon, 122 Ohio St.3d 582, 2009-Ohio-
4082, 913 N.E.2d 442, ¶ 1. 
{¶ 5} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and FRENCH, FISCHER, DONNELLY, and STEWART, JJ., 
concur. 
KENNEDY, J., concurs in judgment only, with an opinion joined by DEWINE, 
J. 
_________________ 
KENNEDY, J., concurring in judgment only. 
{¶ 6} I concur in the majority’s judgment affirming the Seventh District 
Court of Appeals’ dismissal of appellant Timothy Grinnell’s petition for a writ of 
habeas corpus.  I write separately, however, because a dismissal for the failure to 
state a claim upon which relief can be granted is a decision on the merits, State ex 
rel. Arcadia Acres v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 123 Ohio St.3d 54, 2009-
Ohio-4176, 914 N.E.2d 170, ¶ 15, but here, there is no need to dismiss Grinnell’s 
petition on the merits.  A party may not seek a writ of habeas corpus to obtain 
successive appellate reviews of the same issue.  Wells v. Hudson, 113 Ohio St.3d 
January Term, 2019 
 
3
308, 2007-Ohio-1955, 865 N.E.2d 46, ¶ 7.  Because Grinnell’s petition raises a 
claim that we have previously rejected, it should be dismissed for that reason. 
{¶ 7} Grinnell is serving a sentence of 20 years to life in prison for his 
participation in the murder of two fellow inmates during the 1993 Lucasville prison 
riot.  See State v. Grinnell, 112 Ohio App.3d 124, 678 N.E.2d 231 (10th Dist.1996). 
{¶ 8} In 2018, Grinnell petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that 
the trial court never journalized the judgment of conviction in his case. 
{¶ 9} However, we rejected this same claim in a direct appeal in 2013: 
“Grinnell’s sentencing entry constitutes a final, appealable order because it set forth 
his convictions, the sentence, the judge’s signature, and the time stamp indicating 
the entry upon the journal by the clerk.”  State ex rel. Grinnell v. Reece, 135 Ohio 
St.3d 255, 2013-Ohio-733, 985 N.E.2d 1269, ¶ 2.  We further explained that 
Grinnell’s assertion that the entry was not journalized “is factually inaccurate.  
While the time-stamp on the copy of the entry attached to Grinnell’s petition is hard 
to see, the darker copy appended to Judge Reece’s brief clearly shows that the entry 
was stamped and certified by the clerk.”  Id. at ¶ 3. 
{¶ 10} “We have routinely held that extraordinary writs may not be used as 
a substitute for an otherwise barred second appeal or to gain successive appellate 
reviews of the same issue.”  State ex rel. LTV Steel Co. v. Gwin, 64 Ohio St.3d 245, 
249, 594 N.E.2d 616 (1992).  This remains true even if a prior appeal was wrongly 
decided.  State ex rel. Peoples v. Johnson, 152 Ohio St.3d 418, 2017-Ohio-9140, 
97 N.E.3d 426, ¶ 11.  The failure to apply this caselaw risks endless relitigation of 
the sufficiency of sentencing entries, undermining the finality of all criminal 
judgments.  Id. at ¶ 13. 
{¶ 11} For these reasons, I concur in the court’s judgment affirming the 
dismissal of Grinnell’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 
DEWINE, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. 
_________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
4
Timothy Grinnell, pro se. 
Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Stephanie L. Watson, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellee. 
_________________