Case Title: State ex rel. Haddix v. Warden

Citation: 2023-Ohio-1637

Docket Number: 2022-1262

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2023-05-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. Haddix v. Warden, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1637.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2023-OHIO-1637 
THE STATE EX REL. HADDIX, APPELLANT, v. WARDEN, MADISON 
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Haddix v. Warden, Slip Opinion No.  
2023-Ohio-1637.] 
Habeas corpus—Inmate’s arguments waived for failure to raise them in court of 
appeals—Even if trial court failed to issue final, appealable order, inmate 
would not be entitled to immediate release from prison—Court of appeals’ 
judgment denying writ affirmed. 
(No. 2022-1262—Submitted February 28, 2023—Decided May 18, 2023.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Madison County, No. CA2022-07-015. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, Douglas E. Haddix, an inmate at the Madison Correctional 
Institution, appeals the judgment of the Twelfth District Court of Appeals denying 
his complaint for a writ of habeas corpus against appellee, the warden of the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
2 
institution.  Also pending is Haddix’s motion requesting trial transcripts and journal 
entries from his underlying criminal case.  We deny the motion and affirm the 
Twelfth District’s judgment. 
Background 
{¶ 2} In 1995, the Stark County Grand Jury returned a six-count indictment 
against Haddix.  Counts one through three were charges of rape involving a child 
under the age of 13.  The indictment also included one count each of felonious 
sexual penetration, gross sexual imposition, and endangering a child.  At the close 
of the state’s case-in-chief, the trial court dismissed the child-endangering charge.  
See State v. Haddix, 5th Dist. Stark No. 95-CA-0175, 1996 WL 363510, *1 (June 
3, 1996).  The jury acquitted Haddix of the first rape count. 
{¶ 3} The trial court’s sentencing entry summarized the jury’s verdicts as 
“guilty of the crimes of Rape, 2 Cts.; Felonious Sexual Penetration, 1 Ct., Gross 
Sexual Imposition, 1 Ct.; and Endangering Children, 1 Ct.”  (Citations omitted.)  
The entry did not mention the first count of rape, of which Haddix had been 
acquitted, and it did not specify which two counts of rape Haddix had been 
convicted of.  The entry erroneously stated that the jury had found Haddix guilty of 
child endangering, but the trial court did not impose a sentence for that charge. 
{¶ 4} The trial court imposed an indeterminate prison sentence of 10 to 25 
years on each rape count, to be served concurrently, and terms of 5 to 25 years for 
felonious sexual penetration and two years for gross sexual imposition, to be served 
consecutively to each other and to the rape sentences.  Thus, the trial court 
sentenced Haddix to an aggregate term of 17 to 50 years in prison.  The Fifth 
District Court of Appeals affirmed Haddix’s convictions.  Haddix did not challenge 
the sentencing entry in his direct appeal. 
{¶ 5} In 2012, Haddix filed a motion for resentencing, arguing that he had 
been sentenced for a count of rape of which he had been found not guilty.  State v. 
January Term, 2023 
 
3 
Haddix, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2012-CA-00218, 2013-Ohio-1974, ¶ 8.  The trial court 
denied the motion.  On appeal, the Fifth District stated: 
 
The original judgment entry of conviction and sentence, 
filed on May 2, 1995, did reflect that Haddix was sentenced to an 
indeterminate sentence of 10 to 25 years for the second count of 
statutory rape.  The jury, however, had acquitted Haddix of this 
specific count in the indictment. 
 
Id. at ¶ 13.  The Fifth District seemingly did not realize that Haddix had been 
indicted on three counts of rape and convicted of two of those counts.  Despite 
finding an error in the sentencing entry, the Fifth District denied relief, stating, 
“This entire sentencing entry was corrected by a nunc pro tun[c] entry, filed on May 
30, 1995, to correct th[e] error.”  Id.  Because Haddix could have appealed any error 
in his original sentencing entry, the Fifth District concluded that Haddix’s claim 
was barred under the doctrine of res judicata.  Id. at ¶ 16. 
{¶ 6} In November 2021, Haddix filed another motion to vacate his 
sentence, suggesting that errors in the original sentencing entry were evidence of 
fraud.  The Fifth District denied the motion, holding that the nunc pro tunc entry 
had corrected the reference to the child-endangering count.  The decision did not 
directly address any claim by Haddix regarding his rape convictions, but in relating 
the background, the Fifth District made a factual error—it indicated that Haddix 
had been convicted of counts one and three and acquitted of count two. 
{¶ 7} Seizing on that misstatement, in July 2022, Haddix filed the present 
complaint for a writ of habeas corpus in the Twelfth District.  According to Haddix, 
the Fifth District, in its 2013 opinion, stated that Haddix had been sentenced on 
count two of the indictment even though he had been acquitted of that count.  Based 
on this discrepancy, he alleged that the trial court had sentenced him for an offense 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
4 
when it lacked jurisdiction to do so.  Alternatively, he alleged that the trial court 
had unreasonably failed to impose a judgment that satisfied the requirements of 
Crim.R. 32. 
{¶ 8} The Twelfth District denied the writ.  The court held that habeas 
corpus did not lie, because the error in the sentencing entry was not jurisdictional 
and Haddix had other remedies by which to raise the issue.  The court of appeals 
also noted that the trial court’s nunc pro tunc entry had cured the error. 
{¶ 9} Haddix has appealed. 
Analysis 
The motion for transcripts and journal entries 
{¶ 10} Haddix requests a transcript of the court proceedings from April 28, 
1995, asserting that it is necessary to understand “the truth of what occurred” in 
court on the day the jury’s verdicts were announced in his case.  Alternatively, he 
asks us to take judicial notice of several documents, most of which are already part 
of the record.  We will not expand the record to consider evidentiary materials that 
were not before the lower court.  See Brown v. Cleveland, 66 Ohio St.2d 93, 98, 
420 N.E.2d 103 (1981).  We therefore deny Haddix’s motion. 
Standard of review 
{¶ 11} To be entitled to a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner must show 
that he is being unlawfully restrained of his liberty and that he is entitled to 
immediate release from prison or confinement.  R.C. 2725.01; State ex rel. Cannon 
v. Mohr, 155 Ohio St.3d 213, 2018-Ohio-4184, 120 N.E.3d 776, ¶ 10.  A writ of 
habeas corpus “is warranted in certain extraordinary circumstances ‘where there is 
an unlawful restraint of a person’s liberty and there is no adequate remedy in the 
ordinary course of law.’ ”  Johnson v. Timmerman-Cooper, 93 Ohio St.3d 614, 616, 
757 N.E.2d 1153 (2001), quoting Pegan v. Crawmer, 76 Ohio St.3d 97, 99, 666 
N.E.2d 1091 (1996).  “[H]abeas corpus is not available when the petitioner has an 
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, unless a trial court’s judgment is 
January Term, 2023 
 
5 
void for lack of jurisdiction.”  State ex rel. Davis v. Turner, 164 Ohio St.3d 395, 
2021-Ohio-1771, 172 N.E.3d 1026, ¶ 8. 
{¶ 12} We review the denial of a habeas corpus petition de novo.  See State 
ex rel. Shafer v. Wainwright, 156 Ohio St.3d 559, 2019-Ohio-1828, 130 N.E.3d 
268, ¶ 7. 
Haddix’s propositions of law 
{¶ 13} As his first proposition of law, Haddix argues that his criminal trial 
was presided over by a judge “who was not impartial[,] causing [s]tructural [e]rror 
and [d]ivesting the trial court of [s]ubject-matter jurisdiction to render a judgment.”  
As his second proposition of law, Haddix challenges the validity of the trial court’s 
nunc pro tunc entry; he asserts that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to issue it 
because the case was on appeal at the time.  Because Haddix did not assert these 
arguments before the Twelfth District, he has waived them.  State ex rel. Barnette 
v. Hill, 169 Ohio St.3d 476, 2022-Ohio-2469, 206 N.E.3d 658, ¶ 12 (holding that a 
relator in an extraordinary-writ action has waived new claims raised for the first 
time on appeal). 
{¶ 14} As his third proposition of law, Haddix asserts that the trial court has 
never issued a final, appealable order.  Even if Haddix is correct, his remedy does 
not lie in habeas corpus.  A trial court’s failure to comply with Crim.R. 32 does not 
entitle an inmate to immediate release from prison.  Dunn v. Smith, 119 Ohio St.3d 
364, 2008-Ohio-4565, 894 N.E.2d 312, ¶ 10. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 15} Because the Twelfth District correctly denied Haddix’s petition for a 
writ of habeas corpus, we affirm.  We deny Haddix’s motion for transcripts and 
journal entries. 
Judgment affirmed. 
KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER, 
and DETERS, JJ., concur. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
6 
_________________ 
Douglas E. Haddix, pro se. 
Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Stephanie L. Watson, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellee. 
_________________