[Cite as State v. Bishop, 2024-Ohio-2158.]

Atty. Jane M. Hanlin, Jefferson County Prosecutor, for Plaintiff-Appellee and

James K. Bishop, Defendant-Appellant.

Dated: June 4, 2024

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

JEFFERSON COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JAMES K. BISHOP,

Defendant-Appellant.

OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

Case Nos. 23 JE 0015, 23 JE 0016

Criminal Appeal from the

Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County, Ohio

Case No. 17 CR 143

BEFORE:

Katelyn Dickey, Carol Ann Robb, Mark A. Hanni, Judges.

JUDGMENT:

Affirmed.
̶ 2 ̶

Case Nos. 23 JE 0015, 23 JE 0016

DICKEY, J.

Pro se Appellant, James K. Bishop, appeals from the July 25, 2023 

judgment of the Jefferson County Court of Common Pleas denying his 18 

motions/requests filed between August 3, 2022 and May 1, 2023 seeking various relief 

and further orders from the trial court.1 In these consolidated appeals, Appellant raises 

arguments involving Crim.R. 33, R.C. 2953.21, Crim.R. 48, Crim.R. 16, R.C. 309.05, and 

Crim.R. 12. The record reveals Appellant’s claims are barred by principles of res judicata. 

Accordingly, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This matter stems from Appellant’s burglary conviction in 2018. In 2019, 

this court denied Appellant’s direct appeal in State v. Bishop, 7th Dist. Jefferson No. 

18 JE 0005, 2019-Ohio-2720. The Supreme Court of Ohio declined jurisdiction in State

v. Bishop, 158 Ohio St.3d 1435, 2020-Ohio-877.

Since then, Appellant has continuously attempted to overturn his conviction 

and/or sentence, filing various requests for relief in this court, including: an application to 

reopen his appeal (State v. Bishop, 7th Dist. Jefferson No. 18 JE 0005, 2019-Ohio-4963); 

an appeal from the denial of a motion to correct jail time credit (State v. Bishop, 7th Dist. 

Jefferson No. 20 JE 0006, 2021-Ohio-2356); a consolidated appeal involving a motion 

contesting speedy trial and a motion to dismiss (State v. Bishop, 7th Dist. Jefferson Nos. 

21 JE 0018 and 21 JE 0019, 2022-Ohio-1565); and applications for reconsideration (State 

v. Bishop, 7th Dist. Jefferson No. 18 JE 0005, 2023-Ohio-4511). 

The foregoing is not an exhaustive list of Appellant’s filings in this court. 

Appellant has also filed at least two appeals in the Supreme Court of Ohio and multiple 

actions in federal court. See Bishop, 2023-Ohio-4511, ¶ 2. 

At issue here are Appellant’s 18 pro se motions/requests, including: 

(1) motion for pretrial transcripts; (2) motion for an order to remove the prosecutor and 

assistant prosecutor; (3) motion to inspect the grand jury minutes and to dismiss the 

1 Appellant filed two separate notices of appeal, Case Nos. 23 JE 0015 and 23 JE 0016, from the same 

underlying trial court judgment in Case No. 17 CR 143. On October 17, 2023, this court sua sponte 

consolidated Appellant’s appeals.
̶ 3 ̶

Case Nos. 23 JE 0015, 23 JE 0016

indictment; (4) affidavit for a motion for discovery; (5) motion to dismiss with prejudice; 

(6) motion for leave to file a delayed motion for new trial and a motion for new trial; 

(7) motion to correct jail time credit; (8) motion for an evidentiary hearing for the new trial 

motion; (9) motion for summary judgment; (10) motion for issuance of subpoena; 

(11) motion for change of venue; (12) motion for an order to arrest the prosecutor; 

(13) motion for default judgment; (14) summary judgment request; (15) motion for leave 

to file amended complaint; (16) another motion for default judgment; (17) motion for ruling 

on post-conviction petition; and (18) motion for ruling on motion for new trial.

On July 25, 2023, the trial court denied Appellant’s 18 pro se 

motions/requests, specifically finding/ordering:

[T]he Defendant’s Pro Se Motions/Requests [were] previously considered 

and decided by either the trial court or appellate court, and that no further 

substantive consideration of these Motions/Requests should be 

undertaken[.]

* * *

[T]he eighteen (18) Pro Se Motions/Requests filed by the Defendant in this 

case between 08/03/2022 and 05/01/2023 and enumerated and explicated 

in the State’s 07/20/2023 Memorandum in Opposition to Pending 

Motions/Requests are OVERRULED/DENIED.

[T]he Clerk of Courts shall close this case file and remove it from the 

pending case docket. * * *

(7/25/2023 Judgment Entry, p. 1-2).

Appellant filed the instant appeals and raises six assignments of error.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1

THE COURT ERRED BY DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR NEW 

TRIAL UNDER CRIM.R. 33 AND R.C. 2953.21 POST CONVICTION 

PETITION.
̶ 4 ̶

Case Nos. 23 JE 0015, 23 JE 0016

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2

COURT ERRED BY NOT HOLDING AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 3

COURT ERRED BY DISMISSING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

PURSUANT TO CRIM.R. 48 UNDER CRIM.R. 16.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 4

COURT ERRED BY NOT HOLDING AN EVIDENTIAL HEARING 

PURSUANT TO R.C. 309.05 REMOVAL OF PROSECUTOR.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 5

COURT FAILED TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO C.R. 12 WHEN THE 

PROSECUTOR FAILED TO APPEAR.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 6

THE STATE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH CRIM.R. 16 AND WITHHELD 

DEFENDANT EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE OF HIS PHONE RECORDS.

Once again, Appellant has set forth a “jumbled web of factual and 

procedural arguments that are difficult, at best, to construe.” See Bishop, 2023-Ohio4511, ¶ 6; (11/09/2023 Appellant’s Brief); (2/20/2024 Appellant’s Reply Brief). This matter 

has been exhaustively litigated by Appellant and must come to a conclusion. All of 

Appellant’s current arguments have either been resolved, are moot, are untimely, or are 

matters that should have been (or were) raised on direct appeal or in prior post-judgment 

motions. There is nothing that warrants additional review by this court. 

Res judicata bars any claim or defense that was raised or could have been raised 

in an earlier proceeding:
̶ 5 ̶

Case Nos. 23 JE 0015, 23 JE 0016

Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment of conviction bars the 

convicted defendant from raising and litigating in any proceeding, except an 

appeal from that judgment, any defense or any claimed lack of due process 

that was raised or could have been raised by the defendant at the trial which 

resulted in that judgment of conviction or on an appeal from that judgment.

State v. Smith, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 19 MA 0064, 2019-Ohio-4501, ¶ 5, quoting State

v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 180-181 (1967).

“[R]es judicata bars claims that could have been raised on direct appeal or 

any previous post-judgment motions.” Smith at ¶ 8. 

Regarding Appellant’s 18 pro se motions/requests, the record reveals the 

following: (1) motion for pretrial transcripts (Appellant was provided with a copy of his trial 

transcripts); (2) motion for an order to remove the prosecutor and assistant prosecutor

(proper for direct appeal and these issues have already been ruled on); (3) motion to 

inspect the grand jury minutes and to dismiss the indictment (could have been raised on 

direct appeal); (4) affidavit for a motion for discovery (Appellant received all discovery 

prior to his trial); (5) motion to dismiss with prejudice (could have been raised on direct 

appeal or in petition for post-conviction relief); (6) motion for leave to file a delayed motion 

for new trial and a motion for new trial (all of Appellant’s prior motions for new trial were 

overruled); (7) motion to correct jail time credit (this issue has already been resolved); 

(8) motion for an evidentiary hearing for the new trial motion (moot); (9) motion for 

summary judgment (nothing new raised that has not already been ruled upon by either 

the trial court or this court); (10) motion for issuance of subpoena (time has expired); 

(11) motion for change of venue (time has expired); (12) motion for an order to arrest the 

prosecutor (the trial court repeatedly addressed this issue and this could have been raised 

on direct appeal); (13) motion for default judgment (Appellant’s belief that the prosecutor 

should be arrested was found to be without merit); (14) summary judgment request 

(nothing new raised that has not already been ruled upon by either the trial court or this 

court); (15) motion for leave to file amended complaint (could have been raised on direct 

appeal or in petition for post-conviction relief); (16) another motion for default judgment 

(Appellant’s belief that the prosecutor should be arrested was found to be without merit); 
̶ 6 ̶

Case Nos. 23 JE 0015, 23 JE 0016

(17) motion for ruling on post-conviction petition (same issue has already been overruled 

and affirmed); and (18) motion for ruling on motion for new trial (all of Appellant’s prior 

motions for new trial were overruled).

All of Appellant’s arguments were raised, or could have been raised on 

direct appeal or in previous post-judgment motions. They are, therefore, barred by res 

judicata. See Smith at ¶ 5, 8, 11; Perry at 180-181. 

Accordingly, Appellant’s first through sixth assignments of error are without 

merit. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Appellant’s assignments of error are not welltaken. The July 25, 2023 judgment of the Jefferson County Court of Common Pleas 

denying Appellant’s 18 pro se motions/requests is affirmed.

.

Robb, P.J., concurs.

Hanni, J., concurs.
[Cite as State v. Bishop, 2024-Ohio-2158.]

For the reasons stated in the Opinion rendered herein, the assignments of error 

are overruled and it is the final judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of 

the Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County, Ohio, is affirmed. Costs to be taxed 

against the Appellant.

A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate 

in this case pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. It is ordered that 

a certified copy be sent by the clerk to the trial court to carry this judgment into 

execution.

NOTICE TO COUNSEL

This document constitutes a final judgment entry.