Court Opinion

ID: 9372557
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-21 21:08:13.881868+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:36.309664
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Wright v. Black, 2023-Ohio-505.]

                                       COURT OF APPEALS
                                    RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
                                   FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

 RAMON J. WRIGHT                               JUDGES:
                                               Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
         Petitioner-Appellant                  Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
                                               Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
 -vs-
                                               Case No. 2022 CA 0079
 KENNETH BLACK, WARDEN

         Respondent-Appellee                   OPINION

 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS:                     Appeal from the Richland County Court of
                                               Common Pleas, Case No. 22-CV-0327N

 JUDGMENT:                                     Affirmed

 DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                       February 21, 2023

 APPEARANCES:

 For Petitioner-Appellant                      For Respondent-Appellee

 RAMON J. WRIGHT                               DAVE YOST
 Richland Correctional Institution             Attorney General of Ohio
 P.O. Box 8107
 Mansfield, Ohio 44901                         LISA K. BROWNING
                                               Senior Assistant Attorney General
                                               Criminal Justice Section
                                               30 E. Broad Street, 23rd Floor
                                               Columbus, Ohio 43215
Richland County, Case No. 2022 CA 0079                                                          2

Hoffman, J.
          {¶1}     Petitioner-appellant Ramon J. Wright, Sr. appeals the judgment entered by

the Richland County Common Pleas Court dismissing his petition for habeas corpus.

Respondent-appellee is Kenneth Black, warden of the Richland Correctional Institution.

                                          STATEMENT OF THE CASE1

          {¶2}     Appellant is an inmate at the Richland Correctional Institution. In 1996,

Appellant was convicted of aggravated murder, attempted aggravated murder,

aggravated burglary and aggravated arson in Summit County, and was sentenced to a

prison term of 70 years to life. Appellant filed a direct appeal, and the judgment of

conviction and sentence was affirmed. State v. Wright, 9th Dist. Summit No. 18261, 1998

WL 65481.

          {¶3}     Appellant filed the instant petition for habeas corpus in the trial court,

claiming he was entitled to be released from prison because his speedy trial rights were

violated.      He specifically argued the Summit County Common Pleas Court found a

probation violation holder affected the time by which he should be brought to trial, when

in fact a probation violation holder was never filed, and thus he was not brought to trial

within the statutory time.

          {¶4}     The trial court dismissed the petition, finding the claim barred by res

judicata. The trial court further calculated Appellant’s speedy trial time based on the

docket from the Summit County Common Pleas Court, and found due to the numerous

motions filed in this case, which was originally indicted as a death penalty case, the time

was tolled for all but sixty days. The trial court found even if the parole holder was invalid

1   A rendition of the facts is unnecessary to our resolution of the issues raised on appeal.
Richland County, Case No. 2022 CA 0079                                                 3

and Appellant therefore would have been permitted three-for-one counting pursuant to

R.C. 2945.71(E), his speedy trial rights were not violated.

       {¶5}   It is from the October 24, 2022 judgment of the trial court Appellant

prosecutes his appeal, assigning as error:

              I. THE RICHLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ERRED

       BY GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS.

              II. THE RICHLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

       ERRED BY CONVERTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, CIV.

       R. 12(B)(6) INTO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

              III. WRIGHT ASSERTS THAT FRAUD WAS COMMITTED

       AGAINST THE TRIAL COURT, THUS, HIS JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION

       AND SENTENCE IS A NULLITY AND THAT HE IS WRONGFULLY

       RESTRAINED OF HIS LIBERTY, BECAUSE NO VALID PAROLE

       VIOLATION HOLDER EXISTS.

              IV. THE RICHLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

       ERRED BY IMPOSING $401.50 COURT COSTS RATHER THAN

       IMPOSING COMMUNITY SERVICE OR FORGIVE THE COSTS, WHEN

       IT DISMISSED HIS HABEAS CORPUS PETITION.

                                                I.

       {¶6}   In his first assignment of error, Appellant argues the trial court erred in

granting Appellee’s motion to dismiss his petition.
Richland County, Case No. 2022 CA 0079                                                    4

       {¶7}   A writ of habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy available only in cases

“where there is an unlawful restraint of a person's liberty and no adequate remedy at law.”

Pratts v. Hurley, 102 Ohio St.3d 81, 2004–Ohio–1980, 806 N.E.2d 992, ¶ 8. “If an issue

raised in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus could have been raised on direct appeal or

in a petition for post-conviction relief, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus will be

denied.” Garrett v. Wilson, 5th Dist. No. 07–CA–60, 2007–Ohio–4853, ¶ 9.

       {¶8}   “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. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 180, 226 N.E.2d

104, 108 (1967). Appellant could have raised the lack of a valid parole violation holder

and its effect on his speedy trial rights on direct appeal, and is therefore barred by res

judicata from raising the issue in a habeas corpus proceeding. As noted by the trial court,

Appellant raised this same issue in a 2012 motion for relief for judgment in the Summit

County Court of Common Pleas, which denied the motion because the issue could have

been raised on direct appeal.

       {¶9}   The first assignment of error is overruled.

                                                II.

       {¶10} In his second assignment of error, Appellant argues the trial court

considered material outside the pleadings in ruling on Appellee’s motion to dismiss, and

thereby improperly converted a Civ. R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss to a summary judgment

motion.
Richland County, Case No. 2022 CA 0079                                                    5

       {¶11} Appellant attached numerous documents to his petition, including the

docket from his case in Summit County. Documents attached to the complaint can be

considered by the trial court in analyzing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Modern Office Methods, Inc. v. Ohio State Univ., 10th Dist. No. 11AP-1012, 2012-Ohio-

3587, 975 N.E.2d 523. Further, a court may take judicial notice of a finding of another

court in an unrelated case. In re Adoption of M.G.B.-E., 154 Ohio St.3d 17, 2018-Ohio-

1787, 110 N.E.3d 1236. We find the trial court did not err in considering the documents

attached to Appellant’s petition and in considering findings of other courts which have

ruled on Appellant’s case in ruling on Appellee’s motion to dismiss.

       {¶12} The second assignment of error is overruled.

                                                III.

       {¶13} In his third assignment of error, Appellant argues the trial court erred in

dismissing his petition because his sentence is void due to fraud on the court concerning

the existence of a parole violation holder.

       {¶14} Appellant’s petition did not demonstrate fraud on the court, but rather

alleged the trial court erred in proceeding without first determining whether the alleged

parole violation holder was valid. We find the claim raised in Appellant’s petition is a

violation of his speedy trial rights, which does not render his sentence void.

       {¶15} The third assignment of error is overruled.

                                                IV.

       {¶16} Appellant argues the trial court erred in not waiving court costs in this case,

or in the alternative ordering him to perform community service as a method to pay off the

costs pursuant to R.C. 2947.23(A)(1).
Richland County, Case No. 2022 CA 0079                                                     6

       {¶17} R.C. 2947.23(A)(1) provides:

              (A)(1)(a) In all criminal cases, including violations of ordinances, the

       judge or magistrate shall include in the sentence the costs of prosecution,

       including any costs under section 2947.231 of the Revised Code, and

       render a judgment against the defendant for such costs. If the judge or

       magistrate imposes a community control sanction or other nonresidential

       sanction, the judge or magistrate, when imposing the sanction, shall notify

       the defendant of both of the following:

              (i) If the defendant fails to pay that judgment or fails to timely make

       payments towards that judgment under a payment schedule approved by

       the court, the court may order the defendant to perform community service

       until the judgment is paid or until the court is satisfied that the defendant is

       in compliance with the approved payment schedule.

       {¶18} A writ of habeas corpus is a civil proceeding. See, e.g., Fuqua v. Williams,

100 Ohio St.3d 211, 2003-Ohio-5533, 797 N.E.2d 982, ¶ 7. R.C. 2947.23(A)(1) by its

express terms applies to the costs of prosecution in criminal cases. Further, the statute

provides for a defendant to perform community service to pay court costs if the judge

imposes a community control sanction or other nonresidential sanction. In the instant

case, Appellant is serving a residential sanction. We find the trial court did not err in its

imposition of court costs.
Richland County, Case No. 2022 CA 0079                                            7

      {¶19} The fourth assignment of error is overruled.

      {¶20} The judgment of the Richland County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.

By: Hoffman, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Baldwin, J. concur