Case Title: Goudlock v. Voorhies

Citation: 2008-Ohio-4787

Docket Number: 20080655

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2008-09-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Goudlock v. Voorhies, 119 Ohio St.3d 398, 2008-Ohio-4787.] 
 
 
GOUDLOCK, APPELLANT, v. VOORHIES, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Goudlock v. Voorhies, 119 Ohio St.3d 398, 2008-Ohio-4787.] 
Habeas corpus—Failure to attach copy of challenged bindover order—Filing of 
petition in wrong county—Dismissal of petition affirmed. 
(No. 2008-0655 ─ Submitted September 17, 2008 ─ Decided  
September 25, 2008.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Ross County, No. 07CA002993. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing a petition for a writ 
of habeas corpus.  Because the petition fails to state a viable habeas corpus claim, 
we affirm. 
Convictions and Sentence 
{¶ 2} Following a jury trial, appellant, Frank Goudlock, was convicted of 
two counts each of aggravated murder, aggravated robbery, and kidnapping.  In 
1977, the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas sentenced Goudlock to two 
consecutive life terms, to be served consecutively to four concurrent terms of five 
to 25 years.  He had been bound over for trial as an adult by the juvenile court.  At 
the bindover hearing, the prosecuting attorney represented to the juvenile court 
that “a full investigation including the mental and physical examination has been 
made by a duly qualified person.” 
First Habeas Corpus Case 
{¶ 3} In 2005, Goudlock filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for 
Trumbull County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel his immediate release 
from prison.  Goudlock contended that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to 
convict and sentence him because the bindover was improper.  The court of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
appeals dismissed the petition based on Goudlock’s failure to attach copies of his 
commitment papers.  Goudlock v. Bobby, Trumbull App. No. 2005-T-0011, 2005-
Ohio-3089.  The court of appeals specified that the dismissal was without 
prejudice.  Id. at ¶ 7-8. 
Second Habeas Corpus Case 
{¶ 4} Almost three years later, Goudlock filed a petition for a writ of 
habeas corpus to compel his release from prison.  Goudlock again claimed that his 
bindover was improper.  More specifically, he asserted that he had not been given 
the requisite mental and physical examinations before he was bound over for trial 
as an adult.  Goudlock did not attach a copy of the bindover entry that he 
challenged, nor did he indicate in his petition that he could not procure it without 
impairing the efficiency of the remedy.  When the petition was filed, Goudlock 
was an inmate at the Southern Ohio Correctional Institution in Lucasville, Scioto 
County, Ohio.  Although he captioned his petition as being in the Court of 
Appeals for Scioto County, he filed it in the Court of Appeals for Ross County. 
{¶ 5} Appellee, Southern Ohio Correctional Institution Warden Edwin 
C. Voorhies Jr., filed a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss Goudlock’s petition for 
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.  The warden raised 
several grounds, including that Goudlock had not attached a copy of the juvenile 
court’s bindover entry.  In his response, Goudlock included an affidavit in which 
he asserted that despite his best efforts, “personally, through my mother and 
others, I have been unable to obtain the documents relating to the juvenile court’s 
‘bindover.’ ”   
{¶ 6} The court of appeals granted the warden’s motion and dismissed 
the petition. 
Appeal:  Standard of Review 
{¶ 7} In his appeal as of right, Goudlock asserts that the court of appeals 
erred in dismissing his petition.  Dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to 
January Term, 2008 
3 
state a claim upon which relief can be granted is appropriate if, after all factual 
allegations are presumed true and all reasonable inferences are made in 
Goudlock’s favor, it appears beyond doubt that he could prove no set of facts 
entitling him to the requested extraordinary relief in habeas corpus.  Keith v. 
Bobby, 117 Ohio St.3d 470, 2008-Ohio-1443, 884 N.E.2d 1067, ¶ 10. 
{¶ 8} The court of appeals dismissed the petition because res judicata 
barred it, Goudlock had failed to comply with the commitment-paper requirement, 
and he had filed the petition in the wrong county. 
Res Judicata Is Not a Proper Basis for Dismissal 
{¶ 9} The court of appeals held that res judicata barred Goudlock’s 
second habeas corpus petition.  It is true that res judicata generally bars a 
successive habeas corpus petition.  Everett v. Eberlin, 114 Ohio St.3d 199, 2007-
Ohio-3832, 870 N.E.2d 1190, ¶ 8. 
{¶ 10} But Goudlock’s first habeas corpus petition was dismissed without 
prejudice.  A dismissal without prejudice constitutes an adjudication other than on 
the merits and prevents the dismissal from having res judicata effect.  See 
Chadwick v. Barba Lou, Inc. (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 222, 226, 23 O.O.3d 232, 431 
N.E.2d 660, fn. 4; Hensley v. Henry (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 277, 278, 15 O.O.3d 
283, 400 N.E.2d 1352, fn. 3. 
{¶ 11} Therefore, the court of appeals erred in concluding that res judicata 
barred Goudlock’s second habeas corpus petition. 
Reversal Is Not Appropriate, Because the Court of Appeals 
Properly Dismissed the Habeas Corpus Petition 
{¶ 12} Even though the court of appeals erred in holding that res judicata 
barred Glibert’s successive habeas corpus petition, “[r]eviewing courts are not 
authorized to reverse a correct judgment on the basis that some or all of the lower 
court’s reasons are erroneous.”  State ex rel. McGrath v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 
100 Ohio St.3d 72, 2003-Ohio-5062, 796 N.E.2d 526, ¶ 8. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 13} For the following reasons, the court of appeals properly dismissed 
Goudlock’s petition. 
{¶ 14} First, Goudlock’s petition was fatally defective and subject to 
dismissal because he failed to attach copies of all of his pertinent commitment 
papers.  R.C. 2725.04(D); Tisdale v. Eberlin, 114 Ohio St.3d 201, 2007-Ohio-
3833, 870 N.E.2d 1191, ¶ 6.  Goudlock did not attach to his petition the juvenile 
court bindover entry that he is challenging.  Day v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 566, 
2008-Ohio-82, 880 N.E.2d 919, ¶ 4.  “That entry could have established 
compliance with the bindover procedure.”  State ex rel. Gilmore v. Mitchell 
(1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 302, 303, 714 N.E.2d 925. 
{¶ 15} Goudlock claims that he complied with R.C. 2725.04(D) because 
he could not obtain the bindover entry despite his best efforts.  See R.C. 
2725.04(D) (“A copy of the commitment or cause of detention of such person 
shall be exhibited, if it can be procured without impairing the efficiency of the 
remedy”).  Yet Goudlock did not include even a conclusory allegation in his 
petition that he could not procure the bindover entry.  See Chari v. Vore (2001), 
91 Ohio St.3d 323, 328, 744 N.E.2d 763 (“Unsupported conclusions contained in 
a habeas corpus petition are not considered admitted and are insufficient to 
withstand dismissal”).  Even Goudlock’s self-serving affidavit attached to his 
response to the warden’s dismissal motion failed to detail specific facts to support 
his contention that the bindover entry could not be obtained without impairing the 
efficiency of the remedy.  See Holloway v. Clermont Cty. Dept. of Human Servs. 
(2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 553, 555, 751 N.E.2d 1055 (habeas corpus petition must 
include specific facts to support claim for relief in order to avoid dismissal).  
Goudlock’s reliance on an affidavit attached to the warden’s motion to dismiss is 
similarly unavailing because it indicates only that the transcript and notes from 
the bindover hearing have been destroyed pursuant to court policy ─ there is no 
mention that the bindover entry has been destroyed. 
January Term, 2008 
5 
{¶ 16} Second, in his petition, Goudlock admitted that at the bindover 
hearing, the prosecuting attorney informed the juvenile court that Goudlock had 
received the required mental and physical examinations.  The juvenile court’s 
bindover entry presumably would have relied on this representation and thereby 
would have facially rebutted Goudlock’s claims that he had not received the 
requisite examinations.  Under these circumstances, Goudlock had an adequate 
remedy in the ordinary course of law by appeal to raise his claims because the 
sentencing court did not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction.  Day, 116 
Ohio St.3d 566, 2008-Ohio-82, 880 N.E.2d 919, ¶ 5; Smith v. Bradshaw, 109 
Ohio St.3d 50, 2006-Ohio-1829, 845 N.E.2d 516, ¶ 10-12. 
{¶ 17} Finally, Goudlock erroneously filed his petition in a county in 
which he was not incarcerated.  “If a person restrained of his liberty is an inmate 
of a state benevolent or correctional institution, the location of which is fixed by 
statute and at the time is in the custody of the officers of the institution, no court 
or judge other than the courts or judges of the county in which the institution is 
located has jurisdiction to issue or determine a writ of habeas corpus for his 
production or discharge.”  (Emphasis added.)  R.C. 2725.03.  See also Sevayega v. 
Bobby, Mahoning App. No. 03 MA 48, 2003-Ohio-6395, ¶ 4 (habeas corpus 
petition filed in county different from one in which petitioner is confined was not 
properly filed even though it reached the same court of appeals). 
Conclusion 
{¶ 18} Based on the foregoing, Goudlock’s petition failed to state a viable 
habeas corpus claim.  Therefore, 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. 
__________________ 
 
David B. Malik, for appellant. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
Nancy Hardin Rogers, Attorney General, and Jerri L. Fosnaught, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
______________________