Title: Bevins v. Richard

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Bevins v. Richard, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-2832.] 
  
 
 
 
 
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. 2015-OHIO-2832 
BEVINS, APPELLANT, v. RICHARD,1 WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Bevins v. Richard, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-2832.] 
Habeas corpus—Successive petition barred by res judicata—Judgment dismissing 
petition for writ affirmed. 
(No. 2014-1912—Submitted April 14, 2015—Decided July 16, 2015.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Madison County, No. CA20140017. 
_____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the Twelfth District Court of Appeals’ dismissal of the 
petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by appellant, Andrew Bevins Jr., because 
the petition is a successive petition in habeas corpus and because he had an 
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.  We also deny the motions for 
default judgment and summary judgment filed by Bevins in this court, because 
the Civil Rules do not ordinarily apply on appeal. 
                                          
 
1 We have corrected the misspelling of the Warden’s name. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
Facts 
{¶ 2} Bevins was incarcerated following his convictions for aggravated 
burglary and rape.  He was sentenced to a total aggregate sentence of 20 years for 
the aggravated burglary and rape, to be served consecutively to sentences imposed 
for earlier convictions.  Bevins alleges that the trial court had declared a mistrial 
in a third retrial but failed to place that declaration in a journal entry.  Bevins 
asserts that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over him for a fourth trial, 
because the entry was not filed.  Therefore, according to Bevins, his convictions 
and sentence are invalid and he must be released. 
{¶ 3} Bevins filed this action in habeas corpus in the Twelfth District 
Court of Appeals on August 22, 2014.  On September 11, 2014, appellee Rhonda 
R. Richard, warden of Madison Correctional Institution, where Bevins is being 
held, filed a motion to dismiss Bevins’s petition.  Bevins filed a response to the 
motion.  The court of appeals granted the motion to dismiss, and Bevins appealed 
to this court. 
Analysis 
{¶ 4} We affirm for two reasons.  First, Bevins has filed at least one 
previous petition for habeas corpus.  State ex rel. Bevins v. Johnson, 133 Ohio 
St.3d 80, 2012-Ohio-3922, 975 N.E.2d 998.  Res judicata bars petitioners from 
filing successive habeas corpus petitions.  State ex rel. Childs v. Lazaroff, 90 Ohio 
St.3d 519, 520, 739 N.E.2d 802 (2001).  Bevins filed a petition for habeas corpus 
in 2012, arguing that his right to a speedy trial had been violated.  The court of 
appeals’ dismissal of the petition was affirmed by this court.  Bevins at ¶ 1.  
Bevins could have argued any cognizable claim that he had in that habeas action; 
therefore, res judicata bars his successive habeas corpus petition. 
{¶ 5} Second, Bevins had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of 
the law.  After the mistrial, Bevins was tried and convicted.  He could have 
argued in his subsequent appeal that the trial court had failed to journalize the 
January Term, 2015 
 
3
decision to declare a mistrial and that the trial court therefore lacked jurisdiction 
over his later trial.  Habeas corpus is not a substitute for appeal or postconviction 
relief.  Daniel v. State, 98 Ohio St.3d 467, 2003-Ohio-1916, 786 N.E.2d 891, ¶ 8, 
citing In re Piazza, 7 Ohio St.2d 102, 103, 218 N.E.2d 459 (1966); Bellman v. 
Jago, 38 Ohio St.3d 55, 56, 526 N.E.2d 308 (1988). 
{¶ 6} Bevins has filed a motion for default judgment under Civ.R. 55(A) 
and a motion for summary judgment under Civ.R. 56 in this court.  The Civil 
Rules supplement the Supreme Court Practice Rules only in original actions, 
unless they are clearly inapplicable.  Sup.Ct.Prac.R. 12.01(A)(2)(b).  The Civil 
Rules do not apply in appeals of right, such as this case.  Civ.R. 1(C) (“These 
rules, to the extent that they would by their nature be clearly inapplicable, shall 
not apply to procedure (1) upon appeal to review any judgment, order or ruling  
* * *”).  We therefore deny his motions. 
{¶ 7} We affirm because Bevins’s habeas corpus action is res judicata, and 
because he has an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.  We deny 
Bevins’s motions based on the Civil Rules, as those rules do not apply on appeal. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
_____________________ 
Andrew Bevins, pro se. 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and William H. Lamb, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
_____________________