Case Title: Smith v. Walker

Citation: 1998-Ohio-30

Docket Number: 19981036

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1998-10-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
SMITH, APPELLANT, v. WALKER, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Smith v. Walker (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Habeas corpus to compel Warden of Pickaway Correctional Institution to release 
petitioner from prison — Petition properly dismissed by court of appeals, 
when. 
(No. 98-1036 — Submitted September 29, 1998 — Decided October 28, 1998.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Pickaway County, No. 98 CA 10. 
 
In 1994, the Summit County Court of Common Pleas convicted appellant, 
Paul Douglas Smith, of endangering children and assault, and sentenced him to 
prison.  The judgment was affirmed on appeal.  State v. Smith (July 5, 1995), 
Summit App. No. 16910, unreported, 1995 WL 411401.  The common pleas court 
later denied Smith’s petition for postconviction relief.  Smith also filed a petition 
in this court for a writ of habeas corpus, which we dismissed.  Smith v. Walker 
(1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 1503, 684 N.E.2d 88. 
 
In 1998, Smith filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Pickaway County 
for a writ of habeas corpus to compel appellee, Pickaway Correctional Institution 
Warden Diane Walker, to immediately release him from prison.  Smith claimed 
that his trial court improperly sentenced him for a second-degree felony even 
though the jury found him guilty of a third-degree felony.  Shortly thereafter, the 
court of appeals dismissed Smith’s petition because he had failed to comply with 
the requirements of R.C. 2969.25(A) and (C). 
 
This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. 
__________________ 
 
Paul Douglas Smith, pro se. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Karen L. Killian, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
 
2
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Smith asserts in his sole proposition of law that the court of 
appeals erred in dismissing his petition based on the in forma pauperis 
requirements set forth in R.C. 2969.25 for inmates filing civil actions against a 
government entity or employee.  Smith’s assertion lacks merit because even if the 
court of appeals’ rationale was incorrect, dismissal was warranted for the 
following reasons.  See State ex rel. The V Cos. v. Marshall (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 
467, 474, 692 N.E.2d 198, 204, fn. 1. 
 
First, Smith had adequate remedies at law by appeal or postconviction relief 
to review the alleged sentencing error.  State ex rel. Massie v. Rogers (1997), 77 
Ohio St.3d 449, 450, 674 N.E.2d 1383.  Sentencing errors are not jurisdictional.  
Majoros v. Collins (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 442, 443, 596 N.E.2d 1038, 1039. 
 
Second, res judicata precluded Childers from filing successive habeas 
corpus petitions.  State ex rel. Brantley v. Ghee (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 287, 288, 
685 N.E.2d 1243, 1244. 
 
Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals properly dismissed Smith’s 
petition.  By so holding, as we have held in comparable cases, we need not address 
the issue of whether R.C. 2969.25 applies to habeas corpus actions.  Cf. State ex 
rel. Crigger v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 270, 271, 695 
N.E.2d 254, 255; State ex rel. Alford v. Winters (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 285, 286, 
685 N.E.2d 1242, 1242-1243.  Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of 
appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.