Title: State ex rel. Woods v. Jenkins

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. Woods v. Jenkins, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-1753.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2024-OHIO-1753 
THE STATE EX REL. WOODS, APPELLANT, v. JENKINS, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Woods v. Jenkins, Slip Opinion No.  
2024-Ohio-1753.] 
Mandamus—Writ sought to order trial court to vacate judgment of conviction 
because it was allegedly unsigned—Court of appeals properly determined 
that petition was barred by res judicata—Judgment affirmed. 
(No. 2023-1579—Submitted March 26, 2024—Decided May 9, 2024.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-220479. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, Jeffery Woods, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in 
the First District Court of Appeals against appellee, Hamilton County Court of 
Common Pleas Judge Christian Jenkins (the “trial court”).  Woods requests a writ 
ordering that his criminal conviction be vacated because, he alleges, the trial judge 
did not sign his judgment of conviction.  The court of appeals granted summary 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
2 
judgment to the trial court on res judicata grounds, and Woods appeals that 
judgment.  We affirm the court of appeals’ judgment. 
I.  FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
{¶ 2} In 1986, Woods was convicted in the trial court of rape, aggravated 
robbery, attempted rape, and robbery, and he is currently incarcerated in the Marion 
Correctional Institution.  His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.  State v. 
Woods, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-860576 and C-870179, 1987 Ohio App. LEXIS 
7396 (June 10, 1987). 
{¶ 3} In September 2022, Woods filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in 
the First District seeking an order compelling the trial court to vacate the judgment 
of conviction because, Woods alleges, it was unsigned.  The trial court moved to 
dismiss Woods’s petition on the grounds that Woods purportedly failed to file the 
affidavit of prior actions required by R.C. 2969.25 and that Woods’s mandamus 
claim was barred by res judicata.  In October 2022, the court of appeals dismissed 
Woods’s petition because he “failed to file the required affidavit,” Entry of 
Dismissal at 1, State ex rel. Woods v. Jenkins, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-220479 
(Oct. 21, 2022).  The court of appeals held that it need not reach the trial court’s res 
judicata argument.  Woods appealed to this court as of right, and in July 2023 we 
reversed the court of appeals’ judgment dismissing Woods’s petition and remanded 
the case, finding that Woods had in fact filed an affidavit of prior actions.  State ex 
rel. Woods v. Jenkins, 172 Ohio St.3d 667, 2023-Ohio-2333, 226 N.E.3d 949, ¶ 5. 
{¶ 4} On remand, the trial court filed a renewed motion to dismiss and 
argued that Woods’s mandamus claim was barred by res judicata.  The court of 
appeals sua sponte converted the motion to a motion for summary judgment, see 
Civ.R. 12(B), provided Woods notice of the conversion, and gave Woods additional 
time to respond to the motion.  The court of appeals granted the motion for summary 
judgment, finding that courts in two previous cases had rejected Woods’s argument 
about the unsigned entry, State v. Woods, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-140606 (Aug. 
January Term, 2024 
 
 
3 
12, 2015) (“Woods I”), and State ex rel. Woods v. Dinkelacker, 152 Ohio St.3d 142, 
2017-Ohio-9124, 93 N.E.3d 965.  Woods also filed a cross-motion for summary 
judgment, which the court of appeals denied. 
{¶ 5} Woods appeals as of right. 
II.  LEGAL ANALYSIS 
{¶ 6} We review a court of appeals’ order granting summary judgment de 
novo.  State ex rel. Novak, L.L.P. v. Ambrose, 156 Ohio St.3d 425, 2019-Ohio-
1329, 128 N.E.3d 209, ¶ 8.  Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine 
issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of 
law.  Id.  To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, Woods must establish by clear and 
convincing evidence that (1) he has a clear legal right to the requested relief, (2) the 
trial court has a clear legal duty to provide it, and (3) he lacks an adequate remedy 
in the ordinary course of the law.  State ex rel. Love v. O’Donnell, 150 Ohio St.3d 
378, 2017-Ohio-5659, 81 N.E.3d 1250, ¶ 3. 
{¶ 7} Woods argues that his judgment of conviction should be vacated 
because, he alleges, it is not signed.  See Crim.R. 32(C) (“The judge shall sign the 
judgment [of conviction] and the clerk shall enter it on the journal”).  The court of 
appeals found that res judicata barred Woods from raising this argument because 
courts in two previous cases had already rejected it.  See Woods I, 1st Dist. Hamilton 
C-140606, at 3 (“the [1986] judgments satisfied the requirements for a ‘judgment 
of conviction’ then set forth in Crim.R. 32(B) (now, Crim.R. 32(C))”); Dinkelacker, 
152 Ohio St.3d 142, 2017-Ohio-9124, 93 N.E.3d 965, at ¶ 7 (“Woods 
acknowledges that he unsuccessfully raised the same argument in a 2014 motion to 
correct his sentence.  * * *  Accordingly, he is barred from seeking the requested 
mandamus relief”).  “Res judicata bars the litigation of all claims that either were 
or might have been litigated in a first lawsuit.”  Hughes v. Calabrese, 95 Ohio St.3d 
334, 2002-Ohio-2217, 767 N.E.2d 725, ¶ 12. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
4 
{¶ 8} Woods argues that these previous cases did not involve the issue 
whether the judgment of conviction was properly signed.  Woods is wrong.  Woods 
raised the argument in Woods I, and the court of appeals determined that the 
judgment of conviction complied with the criminal rules.  See Dinkelacker at ¶ 3.  
Woods raised the same argument in Dinkelacker, id. at ¶ 4, and we determined that 
the argument was barred by res judicata, id. at ¶ 7.  Because Woods has previously 
raised the same argument he brings here, the court of appeals properly determined 
that his petition was barred by res judicata.  See State ex rel. Newell v. Gaul, 135 
Ohio St.3d 187, 2013-Ohio-68, 985 N.E.2d 463, ¶ 2 (applying res judicata to a 
claim that was based on Crim.R. 32(C)). 
III.  CONCLUSION 
{¶ 9} Because Woods’s petition is barred by res judicata, the court of 
appeals properly granted summary judgment to the trial court.  We affirm the 
judgment of the First District Court of Appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
KENNEDY, C.J., and DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, and BRUNNER, JJ., 
concur. 
FISCHER and DETERS, JJ., not participating. 
_________________ 
Jeffery Woods, pro se. 
Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Keith 
Sauter, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
_________________