Court Opinion

ID: 9376982
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-06 16:07:34.185113+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:10.877748
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Wordlow v. Davis, Warden, 2023-Ohio-675.]

                 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                          ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                               TRUMBULL COUNTY

ERIC WORDLOW,                                        CASE NO. 2022-T-0121

                 Petitioner,
                                                     Original Action for Writ of Habeas Corpus
        - vs -

ANTHONY DAVIS, WARDEN,

                 Respondent.

                                         PER CURIAM
                                          OPINION

                                     Decided: March 6, 2023
                                   Judgment: Petition dismissed

Eric Wordlow, pro se, PID: A743-919, Trumbull Correctional Institution, 5701 Burnett
Road, P.O. Box 640, Leavittsburg, OH 44430 (Petitioner).

Dave Yost, Ohio Attorney General, State Office Tower, 30 East Broad Street, 16th Floor,
Columbus, OH 43215 (For Respondent).

PER CURIAM.

        {¶1}     Petitioner, Eric Wordlow (“Mr. Wordlow”), seeks a writ of habeas corpus

against respondent, Anthony Davis, Warden of the Trumbull Correctional Institution

(“respondent”), for his immediate release from prison. Respondent moves to dismiss the

petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

        {¶2}     Because Mr. Wordlow has been released from prison, his petition is moot.

Further, since this is a successive petition for a writ of habeas corpus, in which Mr.
Wordlow raises the same claims, his petition is additionally barred by the doctrine of res

judicata. Respondent’s motion is granted, and the petition is dismissed.

         {¶3}   When presented with a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss, the factual

allegations of the complaint are accepted as true. It must appear beyond doubt that the

petitioner can prove no set of facts entitling him to relief. O’Brien v. Univ. Community

Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242, 327 N.E.2d 753 (1975), syllabus.

         {¶4}   “‘[H]abeas corpus in Ohio is generally appropriate in the criminal context

only if the petitioner is entitled to immediate release from prison or some type of physical

confinement.’” Smith v. Leis, 106 Ohio St.3d 309, 2005-Ohio-5125, 835 N.E.2d 5, ¶ 13,

quoting State ex rel. Smirnoff v. Greene, 84 Ohio St.3d 165, 167, 702 N.E.2d 423 (1998).

“If a habeas corpus petitioner seeking release is subsequently released, the petitioner’s

habeas corpus claim is normally rendered moot.” Larsen v. State, 92 Ohio St.3d 69, 69,

748 N.E.2d 72 (2001). Mr. Wordlow’s appeal is moot because the term of his sentence

has now expired, and he has been released from prison.

         {¶5}   Moreover, this is not a claim that is “capable of repetition, yet evading

review.” Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 17, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998); Larsen

at 69.

         {¶6}   Further, we note that the instant petition is additionally barred by the

doctrine of res judicata, since the issues raised are substantially the same as those raised

in Mr. Wordlow’s previous petition for habeas corpus, which we dismissed. In Wordlow

v. Bracy, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2022-T-0095, 2022-Ohio-4280, we found Mr. Wordlow

did not establish he was entitled to immediate release and that he had an adequate

remedy by way of appeal in which to raise his claims. Id. at ¶ 8-9. See State ex rel.

                                             2

Case No. 2022-T-0121
Childs v. Lazaroff, 90 Ohio St.3d 519, 520, 739 N.E.2d 802 (2001) (“[R]es judicata is

applicable to successive habeas corpus petitions because habeas corpus petitioners

have the right to appeal adverse judgments in habeas corpus cases.”).

      {¶7}   Mr. Wordlow’s petition fails to state a claim upon which habeas relief can

be granted. Accordingly, respondent’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the petition for

a writ of habeas corpus is hereby dismissed.

      {¶8}   Petition dismissed.

JOHN J. EKLUND, P.J., MARY JANE TRAPP, J., MATT LYNCH, J., concur.

                                           3

Case No. 2022-T-0121