Davis v. State

2025 Ohio 179

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 22, 2025
• Docket: 2024CA0006
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as Davis v. State, 2025-Ohio-179.]

COURT OF APPEALS MORROW COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

ANTHONY S. DAVIS JUDGES: Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellant Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. Andrew J. King, J. -vs- Case No. 2024CA0006 STATE OF OHIO

Defendant-Appellee OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Morrow County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2022CV00047

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: January 22, 2025

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant

ANTHONY S. DAVIS ANDREW S. WICK Richland Correctional Institution Morrow County Prosecuting Attorney 1001 South Oliversburg Road P.O. Box 8107 – A488214 THOMAS J. SMITH Mansfield, Ohio 44905 Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 60 East High Street Mount Gilead, Ohio 43338 Morrow County, Case No. 2024CA0006 2

Hoffman, J. {¶1} Plaintiff-appellant Anthony S. Davis appeals the July 17, 2024 Journal Entry

entered by the Morrow County Court of Common Pleas, which granted defendant-

appellee the State of Ohio’s motion to dismiss.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

{¶2} “Since 1977, [Appellant] has spent more time inside Ohio's prison system

than out.” Davis v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2014-Ohio-4589, ¶ 2 (10th Dist.).

Although tortuous, the following background history is helpful. On May 20, 1977, the

Franklin County Court of Common Pleas sentenced Appellant to an indefinite term of

incarceration of four (4) to twenty-five (25) years for aggravated burglary. Appellant was

paroled on November 12, 1982, after serving over five (5) years. On October 18, 1985,

Appellant was convicted of theft and forgery and sentenced to concurrent eighteen (18)

month sentences. He was paroled on August 15, 1986.

{¶3} In January, 1987, Appellant pled guilty to breaking and entering in the

Guernsey County Court of Common Pleas, and was sentenced to one (1) year in prison.

He was incarcerated from January 20, 1987, until April 3, 1989, when he was again

paroled.

{¶4} In 1989, Appellant was convicted of aggravated burglary and possession of

criminal tools in Morrow County Common Pleas Case No. 89-CR-3133 (“the underlying

matter”). The trial court imposed an indefinite period of incarceration of a minimum of five

(5) years to a maximum of twenty-five (25) years and a definite period of incarceration of

one and a half (1 ½) years. The trial court ordered the sentences be served concurrently. Morrow County, Case No. 2024CA0006 3

This Court affirmed Appellant’s convictions and sentence. State v. Davis, 5th Dist. Morrow

No. CA–720, 1990 WL 79040 (June 7, 1990).

{¶5} Appellant was paroled on December 22, 1995. Shortly after his release,

Appellant was convicted of breaking and entering, theft, and possession of criminal tools

in the Ashland County Court of Common Pleas and sentenced to an aggregate term of

incarceration of five (5) years. Around the same time, Appellant was convicted of breaking

and entering in the Pickaway County Court of Common Pleas and sentenced to one (1)

year. The trial court permitted Appellant to serve the one-year sentence it imposed

concurrently with the five-year sentence imposed in the Ashland County case.

{¶6} The Ashland County conviction resulted in Appellant returning to prison on

October 1, 1996, but he again was paroled on February 18, 2000. By January 5, 2001,

Appellant had returned to prison on a parole violation. On September 28, 2001, the

Richland County Court of Common Pleas convicted Appellant for failure to appear and

forgery and sentenced him to ten (10) months on each count to be served concurrently

to each other, but consecutive to the sentences in his other cases.

{¶7} Appellant was subsequently paroled on January 2, 2003, but returned to

prison on February 11, 2005, with a new nine-year sentence for breaking and entering,

possession of criminal tools, and burglary. Additionally, as a result of his criminal activities

during his period of parole between January 2, 2003, and February 11, 2005, Appellant

was convicted of four (4) counts of breaking and entering, for which he received a one-

year sentence; breaking and entering, for which he received a six-month sentence;

possession of drugs, receiving stolen property, breaking and entering, and theft, for which Morrow County, Case No. 2024CA0006 4

he received a one-year sentence; and engaging in corrupt activities, for which he received

a one-year sentence. Appellant has remained in prison since 2005.

{¶8} On September 20, 2016, Appellant requested the Morrow County Court of

Common Pleas send a 1990 Order to the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and

Correction suspending further execution of his sentence in the underlying matter. The trial

court denied Appellant's motion on October 11, 2016. Appellant filed an appeal to this

Court, which affirmed the trial court’s decision. State v. Davis, 2017-Ohio-7830 (5th Dist.).

{¶9} In 2018, Appellant filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Tenth District

Court of Appeals, moving the Court to order respondent, Bureau of Sentence

Computation, to “properly” recalculate his active term of imprisonment and issue

certificates of release. The Bureau of Sentence Computation filed a motion for summary

judgment, asserting Appellant had challenged his sentence calculation on numerous

occasions and in various courts, and each court had determined his sentence was

properly calculated. The Tenth District denied the writ. Ohio ex rel. Davis v. Bureau of

Sentence Computation & Recs. Mgmt., 2019-Ohio-4571.

{¶10} In March, 2021, Appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the

Third District Court of Appeals, against the warden of the Allen-Oakwood Correctional

Institution, where he was then incarcerated. The Court dismissed the petition. Appellant

appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, which affirmed the Third District’s dismissal. State

ex rel. Davis v. Sheldon, 2022-Ohio-2789.

{¶11} In 2022, or 2023, Appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the

United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, challenging the State of

Ohio's determination of the manner in which his multiple sentences were to be served Morrow County, Case No. 2024CA0006 5

and his projected release date. Appellant claimed he was being denied substantive due

process and being subjected to double jeopardy because the Bureau of Sentence

Computation calculated some of his sentences to run consecutively, not concurrently.

The U.S. District Court denied Appellant’s petition and dismissed the action. Davis v.

Foster, 2023 WL 3434065.

{¶12} On April 9, 2024, Appellant filed a complaint for declaratory judgment,

seeking a declaration of his rights under the October 28, 1989 journal entry of sentencing

in the underlying matter, i.e., Morrow County Common Pleas Case No. 89-CR-3133. The

State filed a motion to dismiss in lieu of answer, arguing Appellant failed to join

indispensable parties and Appellant’s complaint is, in essence, a petition for post-

conviction relief and is barred by res judicata. Appellant filed a memorandum contra.

{¶13} Via Journal Entry filed July 17, 2024, the trial court granted the State’s

motion to dismiss and dismissed Appellant’s complaint with prejudice. The trial court

found Appellant’s request to have the computation of his prison sentence corrected by

the Bureau of Sentence Computation was barred by the doctrine of res judicata as

Appellant had previously litigated the issue in the Tenth District Court of Appeals in Ohio

ex rel. Davis v. Bureau of Sentence Computation & Recs. Mgmt., 2019-Ohio-4571; the

Third District Court of Appeals in State ex rel. Davis v. Sheldon, 2022-Ohio-2789; and the

United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio in Davis v. Foster, 2023 WL

3434065.

{¶14} It is from this journal entry Appellant appeals, raising the following

assignments of error: Morrow County, Case No. 2024CA0006 6

I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE

APPELLANT IN DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY

JUDGMENT FOR FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF

CAN BE GRANTED. THE [SIC] BEING A VIOLATION OF ARTICLE I,

SECTION 16, OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.

II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE

APPELLANT IN RAISING AND PRESENTING THE AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSE OF RES JUDICATA TO DENY THE COMPLAINT FOR

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT. THE SAME BEING A VIOLATION OF

ARTICLE I, SECTION 16, OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.

III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE

JUDGMENT WITHOUT FIRST DECLARING THE RIGHTS OF THE

PARTIES. THE SAME BEING A VIOLATION OF DUE COURSE OF LAW

CLAUSE OF ARTICLE I, SECTION 16, OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.

{¶15} This case is before this Court on the accelerated calendar pursuant to

App.R. 11.1, which provides, in pertinent part:

(E) Determination and judgment on appeal.

The appeal will be determined as provided by App.R. 11.1. It shall

be sufficient compliance with App.R. 12(A) for the statement of the reason Morrow County, Case No. 2024CA0006 7

for the court's decision as to each error to be in brief and conclusionary

form.

The decision may be by judgment entry in which case it will not be

published in any form.

{¶16} One of the important purposes of the accelerated calendar is to enable an

appellate court to render a brief and conclusory decision more quickly than in a case on

the regular calendar where the briefs, facts, and legal issues are more complicated. State

v. Woodhall, 2023-Ohio-1334, ¶ 3 (5th Dist.), citing Crawford v. Eastland Shopping Mall

Association, 11 Ohio App.3d 158 (10th Dist. 1983).

{¶17} This appeal shall be considered in accordance with the aforementioned

rule.

I, II, III

{¶18} Because Appellant’s three assignments of error are interrelated, we elect to

address them together. In all three assignments of error, Appellant challenges the trial

court’s dismissal of his complaint for declaratory judgment based upon errors he contends

amount to a violation of his due process rights. We disagree.

{¶19} We note, “declaratory judgment is not a proper vehicle for determining

whether rights that were previously adjudicated were properly adjudicated.” Lingo v.

State, 2014-Ohio-1052, ¶ 44, “For direct and collateral attacks alike, declaratory judgment

is simply not a part of the criminal appellate or postconviction review process.” Id. Ohio's

Criminal Rules and statutes provide for the direct review of criminal judgments through

appeal, and collateral attacks through postconviction petitions, habeas corpus, and Morrow County, Case No. 2024CA0006 8

motions to vacate. Ohio Pyro, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce, 2007-Ohio-5024, ¶ 20. A

declaratory-judgment action cannot be used as a substitute for any of these remedies.

Wilson v. Collins, 2010-Ohio-6538, ¶ 9 (10th Dist.).

{¶20} Appellant’s complaint sought correction of his time served and a

redetermination of how much time should be served consecutively or concurrently, which

would, in his opinion, result in an earlier release date. Appellant’s complaint was, in

substance, a petition for post-conviction relief. A petition for post-conviction relief does

not provide a petitioner a second opportunity to litigate his or her conviction, nor is the

petitioner automatically entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the petition. State v. Lewis,

2008-Ohio-3113, ¶ 8 (5th Dist.), citing State v. Jackson, 64 Ohio St.2d 107,110 (1980).

{¶21} We agree with the trial court’s conclusion and find Appellant’s current

challenges to his sentence are barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

{¶22} Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment of conviction bars a

convicted defendant who was represented by counsel from raising and litigating in any

proceedings, 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 or conviction, or on an appeal from that judgment. State v. Cole,

2 Ohio St.3d 112 (1982).

{¶23} Appellant has made similar requests, in a number of courts throughout this

State, for an order compelling the Bureau of Sentence Computation to recalculate his

sentence. All of those requests have been considered and denied. See, Ohio ex rel. Davis

v. Bureau of Sentence Computation & Recs. Mgmt., 2019-Ohio-4571 (10th Dist.); State

ex rel. Davis v. Sheldon, 2022-Ohio-2789 (3rd Dist.); and Davis v. Foster, 2023 WL Morrow County, Case No. 2024CA0006 9

3434065 (N.D. Ohio). We find Appellant's complaint is an attempt to relitigate issues this

Court and other courts have previously considered and denied, and his claim is barred by

res judicata.

{¶24} Appellant’s first, second, and third assignments of error are overruled.

{¶25} The judgment of the Morrow County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

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