Case Title: Pruitt v. Cook

Citation: 2013-Ohio-4734

Docket Number: 2013-0341

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2013-10-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Pruitt v. Cook, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-4734.] 
 
 
 
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. 2013-OHIO-4734 
PRUITT v. COOK, WARDEN. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Pruitt v. Cook, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-4734.] 
Habeas corpus—Res judicata and prior opportunity for appeal preclude relief—
Cause dismissed. 
(No. 2013-0341—Submitted October 22, 2013—Decided October 30, 2013.) 
IN HABEAS CORPUS. 
_____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Kenneth Pruitt asserts that he is being unlawfully detained because 
the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction and Warden Brian Cook 
are ignoring the jail-time credit awarded him by the trial court in his criminal case 
on February 17, 2011.  However, the February 17 entry was in error and corrected 
by another entry on February 18, 2011. 
{¶ 2} Pruitt could have, but did not, appeal the second entry.  He 
therefore had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, precluding a writ 
of habeas corpus.  He has filed a previous habeas action, precluding a second 
petition.  And on the merits, he relies on a statute that does not apply to reducing 
his period of confinement.  We therefore dismiss the cause. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Facts 
{¶ 3} On July 28, 2010, Pruitt pled guilty to various drug and weapons 
offenses and was sentenced to five years in prison.  He filed a motion for credit 
for time served on August 11, 2010, in which he stated that his credit should total 
approximately 1,500 days.  The trial court awarded him 11 days of credit.  On 
September 22, 2010, the trial court resentenced Pruitt to properly notify him of 
postrelease control.  In December, Pruitt filed a motion to clarify the entry 
granting the motion for jail-time credit, asking for 1,511 days of credit.  The trial 
court issued an order on February 17, 2011, granting 1,530 days of jail-time 
credit.  However, the next day the court issued a corrected entry stating that the 
February 17 entry had been inadvertent and set it aside.  The court then granted 
Pruitt 553 days of jail-time credit as of the September 22, 2010 resentencing. 
{¶ 4} On September 30, 2011, the First District Court of Appeals 
affirmed Pruitt’s convictions but remanded because the possession and trafficking 
charges were allied offenses and should have been merged at sentencing.  State v. 
Pruitt, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-100587, 2011-Ohio-4948.  On remand, the trial 
court dismissed some of the charges and resentenced him to concurrent five-year 
sentences for the remaining offenses and granted him 964 days of jail-time credit 
as of that date, November 7, 2011. 
{¶ 5} Pruitt filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in this court, 
challenging the February 18, 2011 entry—claiming that it was forged—on March 
7, 2012.  We dismissed it on May 9, 2012.  Pruitt v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & 
Corr., 131 Ohio St.3d 1536, 2012-Ohio-2025, 966 N.E.2d 891. 
{¶ 6} On June 5, 2012, Pruitt filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 
in the Pickaway County Court of Common Pleas, arguing that he was entitled to 
1,530 days of jail-time credit.  Pruitt argued that the February 18, 2011 entry was 
without legal effect and that he should have been released on May 23, 2011.  The 
court granted the warden’s motion to dismiss, finding that Pruitt had had an 
January Term, 2013 
 
3
adequate remedy by appeal and that he had not attached current commitment 
papers.  The Fourth District Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal.  Pruitt v. 
Cook, 4th Dist. Pickaway No. 12CA22 (Dec. 21, 2012). 
{¶ 7} Meanwhile, the First District Court of Appeals reversed the trial 
court in Pruitt’s direct appeal and remanded to correct the sentencing entry to 
properly notify Pruitt of postrelease-control obligations and to reflect that he was 
serving a five-year sentence for having weapons under a disability.  State v. 
Pruitt, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-110768 (Aug. 3, 2012).  On October 4, 2012, the 
trial court issued a new entry notifying him of postrelease-control obligations and 
properly reflecting his sentence for having weapons under a disability.  He was 
once again given 964 days of credit for all additional time served as of November 
7, 2011.  Pruitt did not appeal that entry.  Pruitt had also filed motions to correct 
his jail-time credit with the trial court, requesting that the original 1,530 days be 
restored.  The trial court denied the motions, and the First District affirmed.  State 
v. Pruitt, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-120092 (Aug. 29, 2012). 
{¶ 8} Pruitt filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus, again arguing 
that he is entitled to the jail-time credit awarded him in the February 17, 2011 
entry, not that awarded in the February 18, 2011 entry.  He argues that the 
February 17 entry was a final, appealable order not appealed by either side and 
that he should have been released on May 23, 2011.  The court issued the writ and 
ordered a return.  135 Ohio St.3d 1411, 2013-Ohio-1622, 986 N.E.2d 28. 
Analysis 
{¶ 9} For the following reasons, the court dismisses the action. First, 
habeas is not a substitute for appeal or other remedy in the ordinary course of law 
such as postconviction relief.  State ex rel. Jackson v. McFaul, 73 Ohio St.3d 185, 
186, 652 N.E.2d 746 (1995).  Pruitt could have appealed the February 18, 2011 
entry, which set aside the February 17, 2011 entry.  Indeed, he made the two 
entries the subject of numerous proceedings, including at least one mandamus 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
action and one motion and appeal.  Because he had alternate remedies, this habeas 
action is properly dismissed.  State ex rel. Massie v. Rogers, 77 Ohio St.3d 449, 
450, 674 N.E.2d 1383 (1997), citing Thomas v. Collins, 74 Ohio St.3d 413, 413-
414, 659 N.E.2d 790 (1996). 
{¶ 10} Second, res judicata precludes Pruitt from filing successive habeas 
petitions.  Cool v. Turner, 135 Ohio St.3d 185, 2013-Ohio-85, 985 N.E.2d 462, 
¶ 1, citing State ex rel. Harsh v. Sheets, 132 Ohio St.3d 198, 2012-Ohio-2368, 970 
N.E.2d 926, ¶ 1.  Because he has filed one previous habeas action raising the 
same claims, on June 5, 2012, in the Pickaway County Court of Common Pleas, 
he is precluded from bringing a second one here. 
{¶ 11} Third, Pruitt’s claim is clearly invalid on the merits.  He based the 
original request for 1,500 days of jail-time credit on a statute that does not apply 
to his situation.  R.C. 2945.71(E) requires that each day an accused is held in jail 
in lieu of bail pending trial be counted as three days for purposes of calculating 
when the accused should be brought to trial, not for purposes of reducing an 
eventual prison term. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 12} For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the cause. 
Cause dismissed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, and 
O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
LANZINGER, J., concurs in judgment only. 
_____________________ 
 
Kenneth Pruitt, pro se. 
 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Jerri L. Fosnaught, Assistant 
Attorney General, for respondent. 
_____________________