The opinion
[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 176 Ohio St.3d 591.]
THE STATE EX REL. MITCHELL, APPELLANT, v. FREDERICK, WARDEN, ET AL.,
APPELLEES.
[Cite as State ex rel. Mitchell v. Frederick, 2024-Ohio-1861.]
Habeas corpus—Inmate had adequate remedy in ordinary course of law through
direct appeal to challenge validity of sentence, and trial court did not lack
jurisdiction over his criminal case—Court of appeals’ judgment dismissing
petition affirmed.
(No. 2023-0791—Submitted April 9, 2024—Decided May 16, 2024.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Marion County,
No. 9-23-06.
________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} Appellant, James E. Mitchell, is incarcerated at the Marion
Correctional Institution. He is serving a 160-year prison sentence imposed for a
November 1994 conviction in Summit County, consecutively to a 3-to-15-year
prison sentence imposed for a June 1994 conviction in Portage County. Mitchell
appeals the Third District Court of Appeals’ judgment dismissing his petition for a
writ of habeas corpus against appellees, Warden George A. Frederick1 and the Ohio
Adult Parole Board. The court of appeals held that Mitchell failed to allege a claim
cognizable in habeas corpus and that he has or had an adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of the law. We affirm that judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
{¶ 2} In June 1994, Mitchell entered a guilty plea to one count each of
burglary and gross sexual imposition, and the Portage County Court of Common
1. The current warden of the Marion Correctional Institution, Frederick, is automatically substituted
as appellee for the former warden, Harold May, under S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.06(B).
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Pleas sentenced him to an aggregate prison term of 3 to 15 years. Mitchell
appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his
guilty plea, but the court of appeals affirmed the judgment. State v. Mitchell, 11th
Dist. Portage No. 94-P-0070, 1995 WL 411830, *3 (June 23, 1995). In that appeal,
Mitchell did not challenge the jurisdiction of the trial court to sentence him. In
November 1994, a Summit County jury found Mitchell guilty on two counts each
of aggravated burglary and kidnapping and one count each of rape, felonious
assault, and attempted rape. The trial court sentenced Mitchell to an aggregate
maximum term of 160 years in prison and ordered Mitchell to serve that sentence
consecutively to the sentence imposed by the Portage County trial court.
{¶ 3} In January 2023, Mitchell petitioned the Third District for a writ of
habeas corpus, arguing that the Portage County trial court lacked jurisdiction when
it sentenced him on his guilty plea to burglary and gross sexual imposition because
“no judgment of conviction and sentence ha[d] been imposed” on him with regard
to the indicted offenses of rape and aggravated burglary. He maintains that that
prison sentence is void and that the sentences imposed by the Summit County trial
court are therefore also void. The warden and board filed a motion to dismiss the
petition, arguing that Mitchell’s maximum prison sentence of 160 years had not
expired and that his claims were not cognizable in habeas corpus.
{¶ 4} The court of appeals granted the motion to dismiss because Mitchell
failed to raise a cognizable claim in habeas corpus and failed to show that his prison
sentence had expired and because he had adequate remedies in the ordinary course
of the law to raise his claims.
ANALYSIS
Applicable legal standards
{¶ 5} We review de novo a decision granting a motion to dismiss under
Civ.R. 12(B)(6). State ex rel. Slaughter v. Foley, 166 Ohio St.3d 222, 2021-Ohio-
4049, 184 N.E.3d 87, ¶ 8. Dismissal is appropriate if it appears beyond doubt, after
2
January Term, 2024
taking all allegations in the petition as true and making reasonable inferences in
Mitchell’s favor, that he can prove no set of facts entitling him to a writ of habeas
corpus. Orr v. Schweitzer, 165 Ohio St.3d 175, 2021-Ohio-1786, 176 N.E.3d 738,
¶ 4.
{¶ 6} To obtain a writ of habeas corpus, Mitchell “must show that he is
being unlawfully restrained of his liberty, R.C. 2725.01, and that he is entitled to
immediate release from prison or confinement, State ex rel. Cannon v. Mohr, 155
Ohio St.3d 213, 2018-Ohio-4184, 120 N.E.3d 776, ¶ 10.” State ex rel. Davis v.
Turner, 164 Ohio St.3d 395, 2021-Ohio-1771, 172 N.E.3d 1026, ¶ 8. Habeas
corpus will lie when the court that imposed the sentence of confinement patently
and unambiguously lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Stever v. Wainwright, 160
Ohio St.3d 139, 2020-Ohio-1452, 154 N.E.3d 55, ¶ 8. But a writ of habeas corpus
is precluded when a “petitioner has an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law, unless a trial court’s judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction.” Davis at ¶ 8.
Trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction
{¶ 7} Ohio’s common pleas courts have original jurisdiction over “all
crimes and offenses, except in cases of minor offenses the exclusive jurisdiction of
which is vested in courts inferior to the court of common pleas.” R.C. 2931.03.
This includes a common pleas court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over felony cases.
See Smith v. Sheldon, 157 Ohio St.3d 1, 2019-Ohio-1677, 131 N.E.3d 1, ¶ 8
(petitioner’s habeas corpus claims were not cognizable, because common pleas
court had subject-matter jurisdiction over felony cases). When a trial court has
subject-matter and personal jurisdiction over the case and the defendant,
respectively, any errors in sentencing are voidable—not void—and are not subject
to collateral attack in an extraordinary writ action. State ex rel. Harris v. Hamilton
Cty. Clerk of Courts, 168 Ohio St.3d 99, 2022-Ohio-477, 196 N.E.3d 777, ¶ 8.
{¶ 8} Mitchell claims in his petition that “[t]o date, as previously
demonstrated, no judgment of conviction and sentence has been imposed on [him]
3
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
due to the unresolved indicted counts in the Portage County case.” According to
Mitchell, because the Portage County trial court never entered a “final order”
disposing of all charges, the prison sentences imposed by the Summit County trial
court are also invalid because they were ordered to be served after and
consecutively to the sentence imposed by the Portage County trial court. In his
petition, Mitchell also argues that the board lacked jurisdiction to “subject [him] to
its discretionary releasing authority and to order continued incarceration * * * as
there is no valid judgment of conviction and sentence imposed granting such
authority to the [board] pursuant to R.C. 2967.13(A).”
{¶ 9} Mitchell’s arguments are not cognizable in habeas corpus. The
Portage County trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction to accept Mitchell’s
guilty plea to burglary and gross sexual imposition and to sentence him accordingly.
Any defects in the trial court’s sentencing entry implicate the trial court’s exercise
of jurisdiction over Mitchell’s criminal case, not the court’s subject-matter
jurisdiction. See Pollock v. Morris, 35 Ohio St.3d 117, 117-118, 518 N.E.2d 1205
(1988) (validity of guilty plea is a nonjurisdictional matter that should be raised on
appeal or in postconviction proceedings).
Adequate remedies existed
{¶ 10} In his fourth proposition of law, Mitchell attacks the court of
appeals’ determination that he had adequate remedies sufficient to preclude relief
in habeas corpus, but the contents of his petition reveal the plethora of adequate
remedies that Mitchell had, which he pursued. See, e.g., State v. Mitchell, 11th
Dist. Portage No. 2018-P-0047, 2019-Ohio-844; State v. Mitchell, 11th Dist.
Portage No. 2019-P-0105, 2020-Ohio-3417; see also State ex rel. Mitchell v.
Pittman, 169 Ohio St.3d 357, 2022-Ohio-2542, 204 N.E.3d 534, ¶ 13. Therefore,
we hold that the court of appeals correctly dismissed Mitchell’s petition based on
adequate-remedy grounds.
4
January Term, 2024
Mitchell’s arguments on appeal
{¶ 11} Mitchell’s remaining arguments on appeal also lack merit. In his
first proposition of law, Mitchell contends that the court of appeals
mischaracterized his habeas claim. He posits that the court’s reasoning was flawed
as a result of its misunderstanding of his claim and that the dismissal was thus
erroneous. But that argument lacks merit because the court of appeals accurately
identified the issue that Mitchell raised in his petition, i.e., his allegations that his
charges for rape and aggravated burglary remain unresolved and that no final
judgment was entered by the Portage County trial court.
{¶ 12} In his second and third propositions of law, Mitchell generally
argues that the court of appeals wrongly dismissed his petition on the grounds that
he failed to raise a claim cognizable in habeas corpus and he had adequate remedies
in the ordinary course of the law. We have already discussed above why these
arguments fail. Therefore, we hold that the court of appeals correctly dismissed
Mitchell’s claim under Civ.R. 12(B)(6).
CONCLUSION
{¶ 13} The Third District Court of Appeals’ judgment dismissing
Mitchell’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER,
and DETERS, JJ., concur.
_________________
James E. Mitchell, pro se.
Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Katherine E. Mullin, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellees.
_________________
5