[Cite as Taylor v. Bradshaw, 2016-Ohio-5067.] 

COURT OF APPEALS 

RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

JACKIE TAYLOR 

 Petitioner 

-vsWARDEN MARGARET BRADSHAW 

 Respondent 

JUDGES: 

: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. 

: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. 

: Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. 

: 

: 

: Case No. 15CA90 

: 

: 

: OPINION 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ 

JUDGMENT: Dismissed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: July 21, 2016 

APPEARANCES: 

For Petitioner For Respondent 

JACKIE TAYLOR MAURA O'NEILL JAITE 

P.O. BOX 8107 SENIOR ASSISTANT ATTORNEY 

Mansfield, OH 44901 OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE 

 150 East Gay Street, 16th Floor 

 Columbus, OH 43215 
Richland County, Case No. 15CA90 2 

Gwin, P.J. 

{¶1} Petitioner, Jackie Taylor, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

alleging the trial court lacked jurisdiction to sentence him for crimes for which he was not 

indicted. Respondent has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Dismiss 

for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Petitioner has also filed a 

Motion for Summary Judgment. 

{¶2} Petitioner was convicted by a jury of Aggravated Burglary, Aggravated 

Robbery, Theft from the Elderly, and Possession of Cocaine. According to the sentencing 

entry attached to the Petition, the counts of the indictment were renumbered. It is 

Petitioner’s contention he is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus because the count 

numbers presented to the jury were not the same as the count numbers of the indictment. 

Counts 1 through 12 of the indictment are all related to Petitioner’s co-defendant. 

Petitioner’s indictment began with Count 13. Petitioner was found guilty and sentenced 

on renumbered Counts 1, 2, 7, and 8. The aggregate sentence was 15 years in prison 

which has not yet expired. 

{¶3} In a case similar to the case at bar, we held Petitioner has or had an 

adequate remedy at law by way of appeal where the sentencing entry contained a clerical 

error as to the count numbers. We held, “Petitioner has or had an adequate remedy at 

law by way of direct appeal to challenge any defect in his sentence. ‘Like other 

extraordinary-writ actions, habeas corpus is not available when there is an adequate 

remedy in the ordinary course of law.’ In re Complaint for Writ of Habeas Corpus for 

Goeller, 103 Ohio St.3d 427, 2004–Ohio–5579, 816 N.E.2d 594, ¶ 6.” Gooden v. 
Richland County, Case No. 15CA90 3 

Bradshaw, 5th Dist. Richland No. 11CA55, 2011-Ohio-5300, ¶ 4, aff'd, 132 Ohio St.3d 45, 

2012-Ohio-2013, 968 N.E.2d 484, ¶ 4 (2012). 

{¶4} Likewise, in this case, the counts were merely renumbered. The charges 

themselves did not change. Petitioner was convicted of crimes for which he was indicted. 

Petitioner has or had an adequate remedy at law by way of appeal to challenge any defect 

in his conviction or sentence. 

{¶5} Further, Petitioner’s claim in this case is barred by res judicata. “Res 

judicata bars [a petitioner] from filing a successive habeas corpus petition insofar as he 

raises claims that he either raised or could have raised in his previous petitions. Keith v. 

Kelley, 125 Ohio St.3d 161, 2010-Ohio-1807, 926 N.E.2d 646, ¶ 1; State ex rel. Johnson 

v. Hudson, 118 Ohio St.3d 308, 2008-Ohio-2451, 888 N.E.2d 1090; Johnson v. Mitchell

(1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 123, 707 N.E.2d 471.” State ex rel. Johnson v. Pineda, 126 Ohio 

St.3d 480, 2010-Ohio-4387, 935 N.E.2d 38, 39, ¶ 1 (2010) 

{¶6} Petitioner has filed a prior Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. He could 

have raised the instant issue in the prior Petition. For this reason, the instant claim is 

barred by res judicata. 
Richland County, Case No. 15CA90 4 

{¶7} Petitioner remains incarcerated pursuant to a valid, unexpired sentence, 

therefore, habeas corpus does not lie. The motion to dismiss is granted. 

By Gwin, P.J., 

Delaney, J., and 

Baldwin, J., concur