[Cite as Smith v. Buchanan, 138 Ohio St.3d 364, 2014-Ohio-459.] 

SMITH, APPELLANT, v. BUCHANAN, WARDEN, APPELLEE.

[Cite as Smith v. Buchanan, 138 Ohio St.3d 364, 2014-Ohio-459.] 

Habeas corpus—Res judicata and prior opportunity for appeal preclude relief—

Judgment denying writ affirmed. 

(No. 2013-0696—Submitted October 18, 2013—Decided February 13, 2014.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Noble County, 

No. 13-NO-399, 2013-Ohio-1746. 

________________ 

 Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} General Smith appeals the denial of his habeas corpus petition. 

We find that Smith’s claim is barred by res judicata and that even if it were not 

barred, he has failed to show that he is entitled to habeas relief. For these reasons, 

we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 

The 2003 Case 

{¶ 2} On December 5, 2003, Smith pled guilty to aggravated robbery 

with a firearm specification. As part of the plea agreement, the state voluntarily 

dismissed several other counts in the indictment, including a charge of attempting 

to possess a weapon while under disability. The trial court imposed a sentence of 

nine years for the robbery and one year for the firearm specification, to be served 

consecutively. State v. Smith, Franklin C.P. No. 03CR-3195 (Feb. 26, 2004). The 

court gave Smith 86 days of jail-time credit. 

{¶ 3} Smith filed an appeal, in which he argued that the state violated his 

speedy-trial rights. The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. 

State v. Smith, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 04AP-326 (Feb. 24, 2005). This court 

declined jurisdiction. State v. Smith, 106 Ohio St.3d 1463, 2005-Ohio-3490, 830 

N.E.2d 1170. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

{¶ 4} Smith then filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The parties 

resolved the motion by agreement: Smith withdrew his guilty plea and instead 

pled guilty to aggravated robbery without a firearm specification and to one count 

of an attempt to have weapons while under a disability (a count that was 

dismissed in the first plea agreement). Pursuant to the new agreement, the court 

imposed a sentence of nine years on the first count and six months on the second, 

again to run consecutively. In other words, the agreement decreased Smith’s 

sentence by six months. 

{¶ 5} The trial court imposed the new sentence on December 6, 2007. 

The judgment entry indicated that Smith now had 1,825 days of jail credit. 

{¶ 6} On December 1, 2008, the trial court granted Smith judicial release 

and placed him on community control for two years. 

The 2009 Case 

{¶ 7} Smith was subsequently indicted on four new charges. He pled 

guilty to attempted felonious assault, and the trial court sentenced him to four 

years in prison, to run consecutively to the sentence from the 2003 case. State v. 

Smith, Franklin C.P. No. 09CR-2547 (Jan. 27, 2010). The trial court filed a 

separate entry, revoking Smith’s community-control release in the 2003 case and 

returning Smith to prison, with 2,312 days of jail credit. Smith, Franklin C.P. No. 

03CR-3195 (Jan. 27, 2010). 

{¶ 8} Smith appealed. He challenged his guilty plea in the 2009 case on 

a number of bases, which the Tenth District Court of Appeals rejected. State v. 

Smith, 10th Dist. Franklin Nos. 10AP-143 and 10AP-144, 2010-Ohio-4744. 

{¶ 9} However, the appellate court found merit in one of Smith’s 

assignments of error. Smith challenged the trial court’s calculation of his jailtime credit when it revoked his community control. Id. at ¶ 28. He claimed that 

he was entitled to an additional 154 days of credit. Id. The appellate court 
January Term, 2014 

3

remanded for the trial court to recalculate Smith’s jail-time credit. Id. at ¶ 31. 

The record does not indicate whether the recalculation was done. 

{¶ 10} Smith sought review in this court, but this court declined to accept 

jurisdiction. State v. Smith, 127 Ohio St.3d 1536, 2011-Ohio-376, 940 N.E.2d 

988. 

Smith’s Habeas Corpus Action 

{¶ 11} Smith sought a writ of habeas corpus in the Seventh District Court 

of Appeals, arguing that his 2007 plea and resentencing are void and that he is 

therefore entitled to immediate release. The appellate court denied the writ 

because (1) Smith could not establish that he was entitled to immediate release 

even if he prevailed on the merits of his legal argument and (2) Smith had already 

pursued an adequate legal remedy to challenge the validity of his 2007 conviction 

and, having been unsuccessful, could not use habeas corpus to try again. Smith v. 

Buchanan, 7th Dist. Noble No. 13-NO-399, 2013-Ohio-1746, ¶ 9-11.

{¶ 12} Smith timely appealed to this court.

Legal Analysis 

{¶ 13} Smith’s claim is barred by res judicata. He has been litigating his 

argument for years in multiple courts, and each time he loses in one forum, he 

commences litigation on the same issue in another court. 

{¶ 14} In State ex rel. Special Prosecutors v. Judges, Court of Common 

Pleas, 55 Ohio St.2d 94, 378 N.E.2d 162 (1978), this court held that Crim.R. 32.1 

does not vest jurisdiction in a trial court to grant a motion to withdraw a guilty 

plea after the court of appeals has reviewed and affirmed the case. Based on 

Special Prosecutors, Smith argues that the trial court had no jurisdiction to accept 

his modified plea in 2007 or to resentence him.

{¶ 15} The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas has considered and 

rejected this argument twice. On February 3, 2011, Smith filed a motion to vacate 

his 2007 sentence based on Special Prosecutors. The trial court denied the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

motion. Smith, Franklin C.P. No. 03CR-3195 (Oct. 5, 2011). On May 22, 2012, 

Smith filed a “common law motion to vacate void judgment” and again argued 

the applicability of Special Prosecutors. And again the trial court denied the 

motion. Smith, Franklin C.P. No. 03CR-3195 (June 14, 2012). 

{¶ 16} The Tenth District Court of Appeals has denied motions to vacate 

Smith’s 2003 sentence based on Special Prosecutors at least three times: State v. 

Smith, 10th Dist. Franklin Nos. 10AP-143 and 10AP-144 (Apr. 26, 2011), ¶ 3; 

State v. Smith, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 10AP-143 (June 28, 2011); State v. Smith, 

10th Dist. Franklin Nos. 12AP-532 and 12AP-533 (Mar. 19, 2013). 

{¶ 17} The Seventh District Court of Appeals has considered this 

argument twice. In addition to the order from which Smith now appeals, that 

court previously ruled against him on the Special Prosecutors argument in 2012, 

stating that he had already challenged the validity of his 2007 conviction in an 

appeal and thus could not relitigate its validity in a habeas corpus action. Smith v. 

State, 7th Dist. Noble No. 11-NO-384, 2012-Ohio-1148, ¶ 11. 

{¶ 18} In addition to multiple appeals to this court, Smith has commenced 

two prior original actions seeking writs of prohibition in this court, based on the 

same legal theory. The first, Smith v. Sheward, 130 Ohio St.3d 1483, 2011-Ohio6277, 958 N.E.2d 175, he voluntarily dismissed. This court dismissed the second 

case, Smith v. Sheward, 131 Ohio St.3d 1454, 2012-Ohio-648, 961 N.E.2d 1133, 

on the merits. That dismissal operates as a judgment on the merits. See State ex 

rel. O’Donnell v. Vogelgesang, 91 Ohio App.3d 585, 587-588, 632 N.E.2d 1367 

(12th Dist.1993).

{¶ 19} In its 2013 decision, the Tenth District Court of Appeals expressed 

the view that “any further challenges to the validity of those judgments would 

likely be frivolous in nature.” Smith, 10th Dist. Franklin Nos. 12AP-532 and 

12AP-533, at ¶ 25. And in the order appealed from in this case, the Seventh 
January Term, 2014 

5

District expressly commented that Smith already had multiple opportunities to 

litigate his Special Prosecutors claim. Smith v. Buchanan, 2013-Ohio-1746, ¶ 11. 

{¶ 20} Smith has had ample opportunity to litigate this claim, and res 

judicata now bars his latest attempt. 

{¶ 21} We affirm the judgment of the Seventh District Court of Appeals. 

Judgment affirmed. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY,

FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 

_________________________ 

General Smith III, pro se. 

Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Maura O’Neill Jaite, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee. 

_________________________