Case Title: Dixon v. Bowerman

Citation: 2020-Ohio-3049

Docket Number: 2019-1600

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2020-05-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Dixon v. Bowerman, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-3049.] 
 
 
 
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. 2020-OHIO-3049 
DIXON, APPELLANT, v. BOWERMAN, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Dixon v. Bowerman, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-3049.] 
Habeas corpus—Successive habeas corpus petition barred by res judicata—Court 
of appeals’ dismissal of petition affirmed. 
(No. 2019-1600—Submitted March 10, 2020—Decided May 27, 2020.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lucas County, 
No. L-19-1155, 2019-Ohio-4435. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} In 2006, appellant, William Dixon, was sentenced to an aggregate 
prison term of 21 years after being convicted of multiple crimes.  State v. Dixon, 2d 
Dist. Montgomery No. 21823, 2008-Ohio-755, ¶ 13.  His convictions and sentences 
were affirmed on direct appeal.  Id. at ¶ 53. 
{¶ 2} In 2018, Dixon filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Sixth 
District Court of Appeals asserting multiple grounds for relief.  State ex rel. Dixon 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
2
v. Bowerman, 156 Ohio St.3d 317, 2019-Ohio-716, 126 N.E.3d 1086, ¶ 2.  The 
Sixth District dismissed the petition, id. at ¶ 3, and this court affirmed, id. at ¶ 5. 
{¶ 3} In 2019, Dixon filed another petition seeking habeas relief.  The Sixth 
District dismissed that petition as well, holding that Dixon’s claims are barred under 
the doctrine of res judicata and that he had an adequate remedy at law.  2019-Ohio-
4435, ¶ 10-11.  Dixon appeals to this court as of right. 
{¶ 4} Because “[r]es judicata bars petitioners from filing successive habeas 
corpus petitions,” Bevins v. Richard, 144 Ohio St.3d 54, 2015-Ohio-2832, 40 
N.E.3d 1108, ¶ 4, we affirm.  Dixon’s motion for leave to file an amended brief is 
denied. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, 
and STEWART, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
William Dixon, pro se. 
Dave Yost, Attorney General, and William H. Lamb, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellee. 
_________________