[Cite as State v. Henderson, 2014-Ohio-2274.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 100374

STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

vs. 

PAUL S. HENDERSON

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT: 

AFFIRMED

Criminal Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case Nos. CR-09-520709 and CR-09-530899-A 

BEFORE: S. Gallagher, P.J., Rocco, J., and McCormack, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: May 29, 2014 
FOR APPELLANT 

Paul S. Henderson, pro se 

No. 573-468 

Marion Correctional Institution 

940 Marion-Williamsport Road 

Marion, Ohio 43302-0057 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Timothy J. McGinty 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

By: Diane Smilanick 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 

Justice Center - 9th Floor 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, P.J.: 

{¶1} Appellant Paul S. Henderson appeals from the trial court’s decision denying 

his motion to correct a void sentence. We find neither any merit nor any reasonable 

grounds justifying Henderson’s appeal. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial 

court’s decision and, sua sponte, find Henderson to be a vexatious litigator pursuant to 

Loc.App.R. 23(A). 

{¶2} On June 7, 2010, in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-09-530899-A, a jury found 

appellant guilty of trafficking in marijuana in excess of 20,000 grams, in violation of R.C. 

2925.03(A)(2); drug possession in excess of 20,000 grams of marijuana, in violation of 

R.C. 2925.11(A); and possession of criminal tools, in violation of R.C. 2923.24(A). 

State v. Henderson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95655, 2012-Ohio-1040, ¶ 2, 8 (“Henderson 

I”). Henderson was sentenced to an aggregate nine-year term of imprisonment, a $7,750 

fine, court costs, driver’s license suspension, and the forfeiture of two cell phones. Id. at 

¶ 8. Thereafter, Henderson directly appealed that conviction. See id. In Cuyahoga 

C.P. No. CR-09-520709, Henderson pleaded guilty to a trafficking offense in violation of 

R.C. 2925.03(A)(2), with a forfeiture specification. Henderson never appealed from his 

guilty plea in the latter case. On August 26, 2013, the trial court denied Henderson’s 

motion to vacate his sentence in both lower court cases.1

 

{¶3} Henderson timely appealed that decision, advancing six assignments of error: 

 1

 Henderson included other trial orders in his current appeal, but the August 26, 2013 order 

was the only order timely appealed. 
I. The trial court erred in construing this appellant’s pleadings as a 

post-conviction petition on the face of the pleading it is clearly a direct 

jurisdictional challenge [based on a defect in the indictment] which should 

have been addressed as such, the failure of the trial court to do so violates 

this appellant’s Constitutional rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments of 

the U.S. Constitution. 

II. The trial court erred to the prejudice of appellant in violation of his 

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment right to be free from illegal seizure of a 

person and properties. 

III. The trial court erred to the prejudice of appellant in violation of his 4th, 

5th, and 14th Amendments rights against self incrimination[, in light of the 

fact the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because of a defect in the 

indictment]. 

IV. Being wrongfully imprisoned for operating a legitimate business was 

cruel and unusual punishment because it violated the Eighth Amendment. 

V. Trial counsel was not effective, and had counsel been as guaranteed 

under the Sixth Amendment the outcome would have been different. 

VI. The cumulative effect of claims I through V denied appellant due 

process in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment [rights]. 

{¶4} All of Henderson’s current assigned errors mimic those advanced in his direct 

appeal. In his direct appeal, in Henderson I, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95655, 

2012-Ohio-1040, Henderson advanced the following assigned errors: 

I. The trial court erred to the prejudice of appellant in violation of his 

Fourth Amendment right to be free from illegal seizure of a person and 

property. 

II. The trial court erred to the prejudice of appellant in violation of the First 

Amendment right [to assembly and association]. 

III. Trial counsel was not effective and had counsel been counsel as 

guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment, the outcome would have been 

different. 
IV. Being wrongfully imprisoned for operating a legitimate business was 

cruel and unusual punishment because it violated the Eighth Amendment. 

V. The cumulative effect of claims I through IV denied appellant due 

process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

VI. The trial court erred to the prejudice of appellant in violation of his 

Fourth and Eighth Amendment rights to be free from illegal seizure of a 

person, and cruel and unusual punishment because it violated the Eighth 

Amendment, [and the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction in light of an 

alleged defect in the complaint.] 

{¶5} “Res judicata bars the assertion of claims against a valid, final judgment of 

conviction that have been raised or could have been raised on appeal.” State v. Ketterer, 

126 Ohio St.3d 448, 2010-Ohio-3831, 935 N.E.2d 9, ¶ 59, citing State v. Perry, 10 Ohio 

St.2d 175, 226 N.E.2d 104 (1967), paragraph nine of the syllabus. Every one of 

Henderson’s current arguments were already addressed by this court in Henderson’s 

direct appeal and found to be without merit. See Henderson I. Henderson’s assigned 

errors are collectively overruled. Henderson’s arguments were already determined to be 

without merit, and Henderson cannot collaterally attack that judgment through yet another 

appeal. There was no reasonable basis for filing the current appeal. Henderson had his 

opportunity to challenge his conviction on the basis of the facts and arguments presented 

in his direct appeals. In fact, this is Henderson’s third attempt to raise the same set of 

facts and arguments. 

{¶6} In Henderson v. Saffold, Henderson filed an original action, in part, claiming 

that his indictments in CR-09-520709 and CR-09-530899-A were defective, both cases 

were shams, his arrest warrant was without the proper affidavits, his convictions were 
based on illegally seized evidence, and his sentences were generally void ab initio. 

Henderson v. Saffold, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100406, 2014-Ohio-306. This court not 

only dismissed the original action primarily based on the fact that Henderson had an 

adequate remedy in his direct appeals, but also admonished Henderson for filing frivolous 

appeals. This court could not have been more clear: 

[T]he conduct of Henderson, through the continued filing of appeals and 

original actions, may result in Henderson being declared a vexatious 

litigator. Pursuant to Loc.App.R. 23(A), an appeal or original action shall 

be considered frivolous if it is not reasonably grounded in fact or warranted 

by existing law. Loc.App.R. 23(B) further provides that a party that 

habitually, persistently, and without reasonable cause engages in frivolous 

conduct, may be declared a vexatious litigator subject to filing restrictions. 

Henderson has continually taxed the limited resources of this court through 

the filing of ten appeals and eighteen original actions since 1991. Even in 

a light most favorable to Henderson, the ten appeals and eighteen original 

actions were or are not reasonably grounded in fact or warranted by existing 

law. Thus, Henderson is forewarned that the continued filing of appeals or 

original actions, that are not reasonably grounded in fact or warranted by 

existing law, shall result in the declaration of him being a vexatious 

litigator. 

Id. at ¶ 19. 

{¶7} In State ex rel. McGrath v. McClelland, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 97209, 

2012-Ohio-157, this court determined, in a similar situation, that a party’s conduct in 

refiling original actions premised on the same arguments already determined to be 

without merit by the appellate court, constituted grounds to deem the party a vexatious 

litigator pursuant to Loc.R. 23(A). Id. at ¶ 7. McGrath filed two unsuccessful original 

actions based on the claim that his sentence was defective. Id. at ¶ 6. In deciding relief 

was unwarranted, that court noted that McGrath “ha[d] continually taxed the limited 
resources of this court through the filing of 23 appeals and 13 original actions over the 

past 10 years.” Id. This court also imposed prospective filing restrictions based on that 

finding. Id. at ¶ 7. 

{¶8} In the current case, Henderson previously and unsuccessfully filed an original 

action, titled as a writ of procedendo/mandamus, and now another appeal, alleging the 

same facts and issues raised in his direct appeal. This is Henderson’s third attempt to 

litigate the same disputes advanced in Henderson I. We, sua sponte, find Henderson to 

be a vexatious litigator under Loc.App.R. 23. In addition to attempting to prosecute the 

same arguments a third time, Henderson has filed ten appeals and eighteen original 

actions since 1999, several of which were not reasonably grounded in fact or warranted 

by existing law. Saffold, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100406, 2014-Ohio-306, ¶ 19; see, 

e.g., Henderson v. State, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 97042, 2011-Ohio-5679; Henderson v. 

Saffold, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 94769, 2010-Ohio-2609; Henderson v. Shaffer, 8th Dist. 

Cuyahoga No. 94485, 2010-Ohio-915; Henderson v. Saffold, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 

94581, 2010-Ohio-536; Henderson v. Houk, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 94426, 

2010-Ohio-368; Henderson v. Houk, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 94254, 2009-Ohio-6475; 

Henderson v. Saffold, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 93449, 2009-Ohio-4028; State ex rel. 

Henderson v. Friedman, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 84309, 2004-Ohio-3106; Henderson v. 

Lebarron, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 84030, 2004-Ohio-1002; State ex rel. Henderson v. 

McCormick, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 77008, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 5226 (Nov. 4, 1999). 

 Accordingly, Henderson is prohibited from instituting any future legal proceedings in 
the Eighth District Court of Appeals without first obtaining leave. He is further 

prohibited from filing any proceedings in the Eighth District Court of Appeals without the 

filing fee and security for costs required by Loc.App.R. 3(A). See McGrath, 8th Dist. 

Cuyahoga No. 97209, 2012-Ohio-157. Any request to file an appeal or original action 

shall be submitted to the clerk of this court for the court’s review. 

{¶9} We affirm the judgment of the trial court. It is further ordered that 

Henderson be declared a vexatious litigator pursuant to Loc.App.R. 23. It is ordered 

that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed. 

The court finds there were no reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common 

pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant’s conviction having 

been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court 

for execution of sentence. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of 

the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, PRESIDING JUDGE 

KENNETH A. ROCCO, J., and 

TIM McCORMACK, J., CONCUR