[Cite as State ex rel. Ogletree v. Bradshaw, 2013-Ohio-1137.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO 

State of Ohio ex rel. : JUDGES: 

WILLIE OGLETREE, JR. : 

 : 

 Petitioner : Hon., Patricia A. Delaney P.J. 

 : Hon., Sheila G. Farmer J. 

-vs- : Hon., John W. Wise J. 

 : 

MARGARET BRADSHAW, Warden, : CASE NO. 12CA51 

Richland Correctional Institution : 

 : 

 : 

 Respondent : 

 : OPINION 

 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Habeas Corpus 

JUDGMENT: WRIT DISMISSED 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: March 18, 2013 

APPEARANCES: 

For Petitioner: For Respondent: 

Willie Ogletree, Jr. (Pro Se) Maura O’Neill Jaite 

Inmate No. 406823 Sr. Assistant Attorney General 

Richland Correctional Institution Ohio Attorney’s General Office 

1001 Olivesburg Road Criminal Justice Section 

Mansfield, OH 44901 150 East Gay Street, 16th Floor 

 Columbus, OH 43215 
Richland County, Case No. 12CA51 1

Delaney, P.J. 

{¶1} Inmate-petitioner, Willie Ogletree, Jr. [“Ogletree”], has filed a Petition for 

Writ of Habeas Corpus. Respondent is the warden of the Richland Correctional 

institution (RiCI) in Mansfield, Richland County, Ohio 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

{¶2} Ogletree1 is state prisoner number #406-823 at RiCI. Respondent 

Bradshaw is the warden at that institution. As the RiCI Warden, Respondent Bradshaw 

maintains custody of Ogletree pursuant to judgments of conviction and sentences. See, 

State v. Ogletree, 8th District No. 79882, 2002-Ohio-4070. [“Ogletree I”]. 

{¶3} In Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Case No. CR-01-401639, 

Ogletree was found guilty after a jury trial of two first-degree felony Aggravated Robbery 

charges with 1-year firearm, 3-year firearm, and repeat violent offender specifications; 

two first-degree felony Kidnapping charges with 1-year firearm, 3-year firearm and 

repeat violent offender specifications and one third-degree felony Having Weapons 

Under Disability charge with a 1-year firearm specification.2

 Ogletree I, ¶ 1. 

{¶4} By journal entry filed May 29, 2001, the trial court sentenced appellant to a 

total aggregate term of thirty-five years in prison. 

 

 

1

 There is a discrepancy as to the correct spelling of appellant's last name. In previous filings, the 

spelling is “Ogaltree.” On the trial court's judgment entry and the jacket of the case file, it is spelled 

“Ogletree.” Because the initial pleading in this case, the petition for habeas corpus relief, lists petitioner's 

name as “Ogletree,” we will adopt this spelling of the name. 

2

 We note that the trial court’s Journal Entry of sentencing filed May 29, 2001, as well as the 

respondent’s’ brief in this matter, incorrectly state that Ogletree “Plead Guilty” to the charges. 
Richland County, Case No. 12CA51 2 

{¶5} Specifically, the trial courts sentencing entry stated, in relevant part, as 

follows, 

* * * 

1 YEAR FIREARM SPECS MERGE WITH 3 YEAR FIREARM 

SPECS FOR SENTENCING. THE COURT IMPOSES A PRISON TERM 

AT LORAIN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION OF 5 YEARS ON FIREARM 

SPECS TO RUN PRIOR TO AND CONSECUTIVE WITH 8 YEARS ON 

BASE CHARGE ON EACH OF COUNTS 1, 2, 5 AND 6; 3 YEARS ON 

COUNT 7, COUNTS TO RUN CONCURRENT WITH EACH OTHER FOR 

A TOTAL CONFINEMENT OF 35 YEARS 

DEFENDANT TO RECEIVE 172 DAYS JAIL TIME CREDIT, TO 

DATE. 

* * * 

State v. Ogletree, Cuyahoga Common Pleas, Case No. CR 401639, Journal Entry, filed 

May 29, 2001[State’s Exhibit A]. His convictions were affirmed on appeal. Ogletree I. 

{¶6} Subsequently, Ogletree filed several post-conviction relief motions in the 

trial court. On October 27, 2005, Ogletree filed a motion to merge allied offenses of 

similar import which the trial court denied finding that there was sufficient evidence of a 

separate animus as to each of the two victims for the crimes of Aggravated Robbery 
Richland County, Case No. 12CA51 3

and Kidnapping. Ogletree also filed a motion for resentencing and alternative relief and 

a motion to void judgment on October 27, 2010, both which the trial court denied under 

res judicata by Journal Entry filed November 29, 2010. 

{¶7} On January 10, 2011, Ogletree filed a petition for relief after judgment 

pursuant to R.C. 5145.01. On January 14, 2011, Ogletree filed a motion to void 

judgment. By separate journal entries filed October 3, 2011, the trial court denied 

Ogletree’s petition and motion. 

{¶8} On November 29, 2011, Ogletree filed a motion in the trial court to correct 

sentencing. The trial court granted the motion in part and on April 23, 2012, 

resentenced Ogletree solely to properly impose post-release control in accordance with 

State v. Fisher, 128 Ohio St.3d 92, 2010-Ohio-6238, 942 N.E.2d 332. The trial court 

denied Ogletree's pre-hearing oral motions and specifically ordered that the "sentence 

previously imposed by Judge Boyko is undisturbed." (Exhibit G) On May 16, 2012, 

Ogletree filed an appeal notice in State v. Ogletree, 8th District No. CA-12-098369. The 

Court of Appeals sua sponte dismissed Ogletree's appeal on July 12, 2012 because 

Ogletree failed to file the trial court record. (Exhibit H). 

{¶9} Ogletree previously filed a R.C. Chapter 2725 habeas action. See, Willie 

Ogletree, Jr. v. Margaret Bradshaw, Warden, 5th District No. 04CA68, 2004-Ohio-7100 

[“Ogletree II”]. Ogletree did not raise any relief claims pertaining to the imposed 

sentence, the calculated aggregate sentence or any other sentencing entry errors. The 

common pleas court subsequently denied Ogletree's habeas petition and this Court 

affirmed the denial. Ogletree II. 
Richland County, Case No. 12CA51 4 

{¶10} Ogletree also filed a federal petition for a writ of corpus in U.S. District 

Court for the Northern District of Ohio Case. See, Willie Ogletree Jr. v. Margaret 

Bradshaw, Warden, N.D.Ohio No.1:03CV2291 (Jan. 28, 2005) [Exhibit F]. Ogletree did 

not raise any federal constitutional claims related to his sentence, sentence calculation 

or sentencing entry in that petition. The federal court subsequently dismissed Ogletree's 

habeas petition because the state court proceedings did not result in a decision that 

was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal 

law; the state court decisions were not based on an unreasonable determination of facts 

and no constitutional violation had been presented. (Exhibit F). 

{¶11} On July 6, 2012, Ogletree filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus. 

The Petition 

{¶12} In his petition, Ogletree argues that his aggregate sentence was only 11 

years and that his sentence expired May 29, 2012. Specifically, Ogletree contends that 

pursuant to the trial court’s journal entry, the one-year firearm specifications were 

ordered to merge with the three-year firearm specifications and all three-year firearm 

specifications were ordered to run concurrent to each other, but consecutive to the base 

charge. All counts were ordered to run concurrent to each other. The maximum 

sentence for all counts running concurrent to each other but consecutive to the three (3) 

year firearm specifications is eleven (11) years. (Emphasis sic.) 
Richland County, Case No. 12CA51 5 

State’s Argument 

{¶13} The state contends that Ogletree's claim ignores the fact that he was 

sentenced for 9 separate specifications and that it was mandatory for the trial court to 

impose separate, 3-year, prior and consecutive sentences for each specification 

pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(a)(ii). Accordingly, the state asserts that we should 

dismiss the petition pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) or Civ.R. 56 for failure to state a claim or 

raise a materiel issue of fact. 

Analysis

{¶14} The Supreme Court has addressed the propriety of a Civ.R.12(B)(6) motion 

in a habeas action. “‘R.C. Chapter 2725 prescribes a basic, summary procedure for 

bringing a habeas corpus action.’” Waites v. Gansheimer, 110 Ohio St.3d 250, 2006–

Ohio–4358, 852 N.E.2d 1204, ¶ 8, quoting Chari v. Vore, 91 Ohio St.3d 323, 327, 744 

N.E.2d 763(2001). “First, application is by petition that contains certain information. R.C. 

2725.04. Then, if the court decides that the petition states a facially valid claim, it must 

allow the writ. R.C. 2725.06. Conversely, if the petition states a claim for which habeas 

corpus relief cannot be granted, the court should not allow the writ and should dismiss 

the petition.” Pegan v. Crawmer, 73 Ohio St.3d 607, 609, 653 N.E.2d 659(1995). 
Richland County, Case No. 12CA51 6

Accord, State ex rel. Sneed v. Anderson, 114 Ohio St.3d 11, 11–12, 2007–Ohio–2454, 

866 N.E.2d 1084, 1085. 

{¶15} At the outset, we note Ogletree has or had adequate remedies at law by 

appeal or post conviction relief to review the alleged sentencing error. State ex rel. 

Roberts v. Knab, 131 Ohio St.3d 60, 2012-Ohio-56, 96 N.E.2d 457, ¶2; State ex rel. 

Massie v. Rogers, 77 Ohio St.3d 449, 450, 674 N.E.2d 1383, 1383(1997). Sentencing 

errors are not jurisdictional and are not cognizable in habeas corpus. Id.; Accord, 

Majoros v. Collins, 64 Ohio St.3d 442, 443, 596 N.E.2d 1038, 1039(1992); Childers v. 

Wingard, 83 Ohio St.3d 427, 428, 1998-Ohio-27, 700 N.E.2d 588. Ogletree’s claim that

his sentence was improperly calculated is a claim that is addressable on direct appeal 

or by post conviction relief and thus not cognizable in a petition for habeas corpus.

Richards v. Eberlin, 7th Dist. No. 04-BE-1, 2004-Ohio-2636, ¶8. Where a Petitioner 

possessed the adequate legal remedies of appeal and post-conviction to challenge his 

sentencing, a petition for habeas corpus may properly be dismissed. See State ex rel. 

Massie v. Rogers, 77 Ohio St.3d at 450. 

{¶16} Additionally, res judicata barred Ogletree from filing successive habeas 

corpus petitions. State ex rel. Brantley v. Ghee, 80 Ohio St.3d 287, 288, 685 N.E.2d 

1243, 1244(1997). Ogletree's previous habeas corpus petition had been denied by the 

trial court. We affirmed the dismissal of Ogletree's petition. See State ex rel. Harsh v. 

Sheets, 132 Ohio St.3d 198, 2012-Ohio-2368, 970 N.E.2d 926, ¶2; State ex rel. 
Richland County, Case No. 12CA51 7

Brantley v. Ghee, 80 Ohio St.3d 287, 288, 685 N.E.2d 1243, 1244(1997); Childers v. 

Wingard. 

{¶17} Accordingly, because Ogletree possessed adequate legal remedies for the 

alleged sentencing error in form of appeal or post conviction relief, and because he 

either raised or could have raised his claims in the previous petitions, we dismiss the 

petition of Willie Ogletree, Jr. for a writ of habeas corpus. 

{¶18} PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS DISMISSED 

{¶19} COSTS TO PETITIONER. 

By: Delaney, P.J. 

 Farmer, J. and 

 Wise, J. concur 

 ______________________________ 

 HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY 

 ______________________________ 

 HON. SHEILA G. FARMER 

 ______________________________ 

 HON. JOHN W. WISE 
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO 

State of Ohio ex rel. : 

WILLIE OGLETREE, JR. : 

 : CASE NO. 12CA51 

 Petitioner : 

 : 

-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY

 : 

MARGARET BRADSHAW, Warden, : 

Richland Correctional Institution : 

 : 

 : 

 Respondent : 

 : 

 For the reasons stated in the Memorandum-Opinion on file, Petitioner’s 

writ of Habeas Corpus is hereby dismissed. Costs taxes to Petitioner. 

 ____________________________ 

 HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY 

 ____________________________ 

 HON. SHEILA G. FARMER 

 ____________________________ 

 HON. JOHN W. WISE