[Cite as Grier v. Bradshaw, 2011-Ohio-6361.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

 RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

WILLIE D. GRIER 

 Petitioner-Appellant 

-vsMARGARET A. BRADSHAW, 

WARDEN 

 

 Respondent-Appellee 

: JUDGES: 

: W. Scott Gwin, P.J. 

: John W. Wise, J. 

: Julie A. Edwards, J. 

: 

: Case No. 11CA57 

: 

: 

: O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil Appeal from Richland County 

 Court of Common Pleas Case No. 

 2011CV203H 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: December 5, 2011 

APPEARANCES: 

For Petitioner-Appellee For Respondent-Appellant 

WILLIE D. GRIER, Pro se MIKE DEWINE 

Richland Correctional Inst. Ohio Attorney General 

Inst. No. A582.505 

P.O. Box 8107 BY: WILLIAM H. LAMB 

Mansfield, Ohio 44901-8107 Assistant Attorney General 

 441 Vine Street, 1600 Carew Tower 

 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 

 
[Cite as Grier v. Bradshaw, 2011-Ohio-6361.]

Edwards, J. 

{¶ 1} Appellant, Willie Grier, appeals from the June 2, 2011, Judgment Entry of 

the Richland County Court of Common Pleas denying his Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus. Plaintiff-appellee is the State of Ohio. 

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

{¶ 2} On or about June 17, 2009, appellant pleaded guilty in Crawford County 

Case No. 08-CR-0093 to one count of possession of drugs in violation of R.C. 

2925.11(C)(4)(c), a felony of the third degree. Appellant was sentenced to two years in 

prison. 

{¶ 3} Appellant appealed his conviction and sentence. In his direct appeal, 

appellant argued, in relevant part, that the trial court erred in failing to accept the original 

plea agreement entered into between appellant and the State. Pursuant to an Opinion 

filed on February 28, 2011 in State v. Grier, Crawford App. No. 3-10-09, 2011-Ohio-902, 

the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed appellant’s conviction and sentence. 

{¶ 4} On February 11, 2011, appellant, who was incarcerated at Richland 

Correctional Institution, had filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Richland 

County Court of Common Pleas. Appellant, in his petition, alleged that his confinement 

was void because while, in his Crawford County case, pursuant to plea negotiations, the 

parties had agreed to a one year prison sentence, the trial court had sentenced 

appellant to two years in prison. 

{¶ 5} Thereafter, on March 30, 2011, appellee filed a Motion to Dismiss 

appellant’s petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant 
Richland County App. Case No. 11CA57 3 

to Civ.R. 12(B)(6). Appellee, in its motion noted that appellant had “availed himself of 

the remedy of a direct appeal which affirmed the judgment of the trial court.” 

{¶ 6} Pursuant to a Judgment Entry filed on June 2, 2011, the trial court denied 

appellant’s writ on the basis of res judicata. The trial court, in its Judgment Entry, noted 

that appellant alleged in his petition that he was entitled to release from confinement 

based on the same legal and factual arguments that he made to the Third District Court 

of Appeals in his direct appeal. 

{¶ 7} Appellant now raises the following assignments of error on appeal: 

{¶ 8} “I. THE HABEAS CORPUS COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR 

WHEN IT CONCLUDED THAT GRIER MADE A JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGE ON 

APPEALS. 

{¶ 9} “II. THE HABEAS CORPUS COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY 

INDIRECTLY GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS.” 

I, II 

{¶ 10} Appellant, in his two assignments of error, argues that the trial court erred 

in denying his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. We disagree. 

{¶ 11} The Supreme Court has addressed the propriety of a 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 (2001), 91 Ohio St .3d 323, 

327, 744 N.E.2d 763. “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 
Richland County App. Case No. 11CA57 4 

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

dismiss the petition.” Pegan v. Crawmer (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 607, 609, 653 N.E.2d 

659, see also State ex rel. Sneed v. Anderson, 114 Ohio St.3d 11, 11-12, 2007-Ohio2454, 866 N.E.2d 1084,1085. 

{¶ 12} In the case sub judice, appellant already unsuccessfully raised the same 

issues in his direct appeal as he raised in his petition. In his direct appeal, which was 

unsuccessful, appellant argued, in part, that the trial court erred by failing to sentence 

him in accordance with the binding contract that he executed with appellee. The 

doctrine of res judicata now bars him from using habeas corpus to obtain a successive 

appellate review of such issue. See Shie v. Smith, 123 Ohio St.3d 89, 2009-Ohio-4079, 

914 N.E.2d 369, ¶ 2. 
Richland County App. Case No. 11CA57 5 

{¶ 13} Accordingly, we find that the trial court properly denied appellant’s petition. 

Appellant’s two assignments of error are, therefore, overruled. 

{¶ 14} The judgment of the Richland County Court of Appeals is affirmed. 

By: Edwards, J. 

Gwin, P.J. and 

Wise, J. concur 

______________________________ 

______________________________ 

______________________________ 

 JUDGES 

JAE/d0822 
[Cite as Grier v. Bradshaw, 2011-Ohio-6361.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

WILLIE D. GRIER : 

 : 

 Petitioner-Appellant : 

 : 

 : 

-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY 

 : 

MARGARET A. BRADSHAW, : 

WARDEN : 

 : 

 Respondent-Appellee : CASE NO. 11CA57 

 For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion on file, the 

judgment of the Richland County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs assessed 

to appellant. 

 _________________________________ 

 _________________________________ 

 _________________________________ 

 JUDGES