State ex rel. Johnson v. Reynolds

2025 Ohio 5710

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: December 22, 2025
• Docket: 2025-A-0053
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State ex rel. Johnson v. Reynolds, 2025-Ohio-5710.]

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

ROBERT D. JOHNSON, CASE NO. 2025-A-0053

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

WARDEN STEPHEN REYNOLDS,

Respondent.

PER CURIAM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

Decided: December 22, 2025 Judgment: Petition dismissed

Robert D. Johnson, pro se, PID# A702-836, Lake Erie Correctional Institution, 501 Thompson Road, Conneaut, OH 44030 (Petitioner).

Dave Yost, Ohio Attorney General, State Office Tower, 30 East Broad Street, 16th Floor, Columbus, OH 43215, and Jerri L. Fosnaught, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Justice Section, State Office Tower, 30 East Broad Street, 23rd Floor, Columbus, OH 43215 (For Respondent).

PER CURIAM.

{¶1} On September 19, 2025, petitioner, Robert D. Johnson, an inmate at the

Lake County Correctional Institution in Conneaut, Ohio, filed a petition for writ of habeas

corpus, pursuant R.C. 2725.01 and R.C. 2725.04, against respondent, Warden Stephen

Reynolds. After this court issued an alternative writ, respondent filed a motion to dismiss

pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6). For the reasons discussed below, we grant respondent’s

motion to dismiss the petition. {¶2} In 2017, petitioner was charged with attempted rape, aggravated burglary,

burglary, abduction, assault, and criminal damaging all of which were a result of an

incident with his previous girlfriend. State v. Johnson, 2018-Ohio-3999, ¶ 2 (8th Dist.).

The matter proceeded to jury trial after which petitioner was found guilty on all charges.

Id. at ¶ 15. The trial court determined that the attempted rape did not merge with the

burglary or aggravated burglary, but the burglary and aggravated burglary merged. Id.

After the State elected to proceed to sentence on the attempted rape and assault charges,

petitioner was sentenced to an aggregate term of 12 years in prison.1 Petitioner filed a

direct appeal alleging the trial court erred in failing to merge the guilty findings on the

attempted rape and aggravated burglary charges. He also challenged the trial court’s

imposition of the maximum term for attempted rape. The Eighth District Court of Appeals

affirmed. Id. at ¶ 59-60.

{¶3} Earlier in 2025, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with this

court, which respondent duly opposed, seeking relief due to alleged defects in the original

sentencing entry. In that matter, petitioner alleged respondent did not have authority to

detain him because the Eighth Appellate District did not have subject matter jurisdiction

to “‘manufacture petitioner[’]s direct appeal and use count 5 assault as separate and

identifiable harm when it was not an assignment of error raised by petitioner appeal

attorney . . . .’” Johnson v. Reynolds, 2025-Ohio-2929, ¶ 4 (11th Dist.).

{¶4} On August 18, 2025, this court observed “to the extent that [petitioner’s]

petition could be read as challenging the jurisdiction of the sentencing court to impose

1. Petitioner was sentenced to eight years for attempted rape, four years for aggravated burglary, 12 months for abduction, and 180 days for assault and criminal damaging. The trial court ordered the sentences for attempted rape and aggravated burglary to run consecutively with each other and concurrent to the remaining counts. State v. Johnson, 2018-Ohio-3999, ¶ 15 (8th Dist.). PAGE 2 OF 9

Case No. 2025-A-0053 separate sentences for attempted rape and aggravated burglary, such a challenge is not

jurisdictional.” Id. at ¶ 8. This court further observed that petitioner’s argument that the

Eighth Appellate District lacked jurisdiction to affirm the sentence did not “challenge the

jurisdiction of the trial court to impose separate sentences.” (Emphasis in original.) Id. at

¶ 9. This court observed that petitioner’s challenge of the Eighth District’s opinion alleged

error in that court, and thus his “recourse was to seek review with the Ohio Supreme

Court. . . .” Id. at ¶ 12. He did so, and the Supreme Court denied the same. Id. This court

accordingly dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim upon which habeas relief

may be granted. Id. at ¶ 13-14.

{¶5} Petitioner now files the instant original action, which respondent has duly

opposed.

{¶6} In a petition for writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner has the burden of

proving his or her right to release from prison. Chari v. Vore, 2001-Ohio-49, ¶ 10. “[T]he

petitioner must first introduce evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity that

attaches to all court proceedings.” (Citation omitted.) Id. at ¶ 11.

{¶7} A writ of habeas corpus is necessary in certain exceptional circumstances

where there is an unlawful restraint of an individual’s liberty. Johnson v. Timmerman-

Cooper, 2001-Ohio-1803, ¶ 14. Habeas corpus relief, like other extraordinary writ actions,

is generally not available to a petitioner where there is or was an adequate remedy at

law. State ex rel. Fryerson v. Tate, 1999-Ohio-465, ¶ 17, citing Gaskins v. Shiplevy, 1996-

Ohio-387, ¶ 15. The Supreme Court of Ohio, however, has “carved out a limited exception

to this general rule, to apply when the habeas petitioner is challenging the jurisdiction of

the court that sentenced [the petitioner].” Tate at ¶ 17. “[I]f a prisoner fails to present a

PAGE 3 OF 9

Case No. 2025-A-0053 jurisdictional error committed by the trial court in the underlying action, his habeas corpus

claim will be subject to dismissal for failure to raise a viable claim for relief.” Snitzky v.

Wilson, 2004-Ohio-7229, ¶ 12 (11th Dist.), citing Novak v. Gansheimer, 2003-Ohio-5428,

¶ 5 (11th Dist.), citing R.C. 2725.05 (“If it appears that a person alleged to be restrained

of his liberty is in the custody of an officer under process issued by a court or magistrate,

or by virtue of the judgment or order of a court of record, and that the court or magistrate

had jurisdiction to issue the process, render the judgment, or make the order, the writ of

habeas corpus shall not be allowed.”) .

{¶8} When alleging a trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, the petition for

habeas corpus relief must establish the lack of jurisdiction was “‘“patent and unambiguous

. . . .”’” (Emphasis omitted.) Ross v. Saros, 2003-Ohio-4128, ¶ 14, quoting State ex rel.

United States Steel Corp. v. Zaleski, 2003-Ohio-1630, ¶ 8, quoting State ex rel. Nalls v.

Russo, 2002-Ohio-4907, ¶ 18. This court has previously explained the concept of a

“patent and unambiguous” lack of jurisdiction:

“[I]f there [is] no set of facts under which a trial court . . . could have jurisdiction over a particular case, the alleged jurisdictional defect will always be considered patent and unambiguous. On the other hand, if the court . . . generally has subject matter jurisdiction over the type of case in question and [its] authority to hear that specific action [depends] on the specific facts before [it], the jurisdictional defect is not obvious and the [trial court] should be allowed to decide the jurisdictional issue.”

(Bracketed text in original.) Johnson v. Sloan, 2016-Ohio-5375, ¶ 10 (11th Dist.),

quoting State ex rel. The Leatherworks Partnership v. Stuard, 2002-Ohio-6477, ¶ 19 (11th

Dist.).

PAGE 4 OF 9

Case No. 2025-A-0053 {¶9} Respondent filed a motion to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to

state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

{¶10} “A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted tests the sufficiency of the complaint.” (Citation omitted.) Volbers-Klarich v.

Middletown Mgt., Inc., 2010-Ohio-2057, ¶ 11. To grant a motion to dismiss under Civ.R.

12(B)(6), it must appear beyond doubt that the petitioner can prove no set of facts in

support of the claim that would entitle him to the requested relief. Ohio Bur. of Workers’

Comp. v. McKinley, 2011-Ohio-4432, ¶ 12.

{¶11} When considering a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion, we only review the complaint

and must accept all factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor

of the nonmoving party. State ex rel. Talwar v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio, 2004-Ohio-6410,

¶ 5. A court “cannot rely on evidence or allegations outside the complaint to determine a

Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion.” (Citations omitted.) State ex rel. Fuqua v. Alexander, 1997-Ohio-

169, ¶ 5.

{¶12} Petitioner claims the trial court lacked subject matter and personal

jurisdiction over the case and him and, as a result, the underlying convictions are void.

Specifically, he maintains the trial court failed to arraign him on video or in open court; he

also claims the State failed to properly indict him; he asserts he was “never read his en

masse rights on record”; and he was never advised of his right to counsel.

{¶13} A judgment is only void if the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over the

defendant or subject matter jurisdiction over the case. State v. Henderson, 2020-Ohio-

4784, ¶ 34. In a criminal case, the court secures jurisdiction over the person by the lawful

process of arrest and arraignment of the defendant and his plea to the charge. Id. at ¶ 36,

PAGE 5 OF 9

Case No. 2025-A-0053 citing Tari v. State, 117 Ohio St. 481, 490 (1927). The General Assembly vested common

pleas courts with the authority to adjudicate criminal cases, except minor offenses.

Henderson at ¶ 35, citing R.C. 2931.03. Felony cases are included. Id.

{¶14} With these legal principles in mind, we additionally observe that, pursuant

to Evid.R. 201(B), courts may take judicial notice of facts that are not subject to

reasonable dispute. Such facts may include those available on a publicly accessible

website. See State ex rel. Ohio Republican Party v. Fitzgerald, 2015-Ohio-5056, ¶ 18

(taking judicial notice of information presented in an unopposed motion and which was

also available on a publicly accessible website).

{¶15} The Cuyahoga County Clerk of Courts is a publicly accessible website and

includes the docket of the underlying case, i.e., State v. Johnson, Court of Common

Pleas, Cuyahoga County, No. CR-17-614774-A. Based on the foregoing, it is appropriate

in this instance to take judicial notice of the docket of the common pleas court in Case

No. CR-17-614774-A. See, e.g., State ex rel. Hayes v. Phipps, 2024-Ohio-1286, ¶ 6, fn.

1 (10th Dist.) (The Tenth Appellate District adopted its magistrate’s decision taking judicial

notice of the court of common pleas’ docket for the purpose of addressing petitions for

writ of mandamus/procedendo and/or habeas corpus.).

{¶16} Here, the docket in Case No. CR-17-614774-A demonstrates that, on

February 27, 2017, petitioner was arrested. He made an initial appearance on March 2,

2017, and, after he was declared indigent, he was duly appointed an attorney to represent

him. On March 6, 2017, petitioner was served with the indictment. He was, accordingly,

pursuant to due process, appropriately indicted. See also Johnson, 2018-Ohio-3999, at ¶

36 (8th Dist.) (where the Eighth District, in petitioner’s direct appeal, states “[t]he

PAGE 6 OF 9

Case No. 2025-A-0053 indictment was dated ‘on or about February 24, 2017 . . .’”). On March 9, 2017, an

arraignment was held in which petitioner pleaded “not guilty” and waived a reading of the

indictment, and the court additionally confirmed petitioner’s indigence, reiterating the

appointment of counsel.

{¶17} Because petitioner was arrested, indicted, and arraigned, the trial court

possessed personal jurisdiction over petitioner. See Henderson, 2020-Ohio-4784, at ¶

36. Further, because the underlying matter was a felony, criminal matter, the trial court

had subject matter jurisdiction over his underlying charges. Id. at ¶ 35. Moreover,

petitioner was appointed counsel. It is unclear what petitioner means by asserting the trial

court did not read his “en masse rights on record.” Nevertheless, he fails to allege how

any such alleged omission is jurisdictional in nature. Because we conclude the trial court

possessed proper jurisdiction over the underlying criminal matter, its judgment was not

void.

{¶18} We point out that “[i]f the court has jurisdiction over the case and the person,

any error in the court’s exercise of that jurisdiction is voidable.” Id. at ¶ 34. Generally, a

voidable judgment must be challenged on direct appeal. State v. Harper, 2020-Ohio-

2913, ¶ 26. “[T]he failure to timely—at the earliest available opportunity—assert an error

in a voidable judgment, even if that error is constitutional in nature, amounts to the

forfeiture of any objection.” Henderson at ¶ 17, citing Tari at 495.

{¶19} As noted above, petitioner filed a direct appeal. See Johnson, 2018-Ohio-

3999 (8th Dist.). He did not raise any of the issues alleged in the underlying petition. He

accordingly forfeited any alleged error that did not invoke the trial court’s jurisdiction.

PAGE 7 OF 9

Case No. 2025-A-0053 {¶20} Finally, because we conclude that the trial court possessed the necessary

jurisdiction to render convictions on the underlying verdicts, it follows that petitioner is

being lawfully detained in prison. Moreover, his maximum sentence of 12 years does not

expire until February 2029. “Habeas corpus is generally available only when the

petitioner’s maximum sentence has expired and he is being held unlawfully.” (Emphasis

in original.) (Citation omitted.) State ex rel. Fuller v. Eppinger, 2018-Ohio-2629, ¶

8. Petitioner has not served his maximum sentence and, as a result, is not entitled to relief

in habeas corpus for this additional reason.

{¶21} Petitioner has failed to state a claim upon which relief might be granted. We

therefore grant respondent’s Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss the underlying petition. As

such, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed.

MATT LYNCH, J., EUGENE A. LUCCI, J., SCOTT LYNCH, J., concur.

PAGE 8 OF 9

Case No. 2025-A-0053 JUDGMENT ENTRY

For the reasons stated in the per curiam opinion of this court, respondent’s motion

to dismiss is granted, and petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed.

Pursuant to this entry, any pending motions are hereby overruled as moot.

Costs to be taxed against petitioner.

JUDGE MATT LYNCH, concurs

JUDGE EUGENE A. LUCCI, concurs

JUDGE SCOTT LYNCH, concurs

THIS DOCUMENT CONSTITUTES A FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY

A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure.

PAGE 9 OF 9

Case No. 2025-A-0053