[Cite as State v. Mitchell, 2025-Ohio-809.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PORTAGE COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NOS. 2024-P-0047 2024-P-0051 Plaintiff-Appellee,
-v- Criminal Appeals from the Court of Common Pleas JAMES E. MITCHELL,
Defendant-Appellant. Trial Court No. 1993 CR 00294
OPINION
Decided: March 10, 2025 Judgment: Affirmed
Connie J. Lewandowski, Portage County Prosecutor, and Kristina K. Reilly, Assistant Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
James E. Mitchell, pro se, PID# A293-032, Marion Correctional Institution, 940 Marion- Williamsport Road, P.O. Box 57, Marion, OH 43301 (Defendant-Appellant).
SCOTT LYNCH, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, James E. Mitchell, appeals from the judgments of the
Portage County Court of Common Pleas, denying his motions to dismiss and for a final
order. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgments of the lower court.
{¶2} In October 1993, the Portage County Grand Jury indicted Mitchell for Rape,
which was an aggravated felony of the first degree, in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2), and
Aggravated Burglary, which was an aggravated felony of the first degree, in violation of
R.C. 2911.11(A)(1) and (3). In February 1994, Mitchell entered pleas of guilty to Gross
Sexual Imposition, a felony of the third degree, in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(4), and Burglary, a felony of the second degree, in violation of R.C. 2911.12(A)(1). The court
accepted the guilty pleas.
{¶3} Prior to sentencing, Mitchell filed a Motion to Withdraw Plea, which the trial
court denied. In June 1994, the court sentenced Mitchell to concurrent prison terms of
three to 15 years for Burglary and two years for Gross Sexual Imposition. Mitchell
appealed, arguing error in the denial of his Motion to Withdraw Plea. This court affirmed.
State v. Mitchell, 1995 WL 411830 (11th Dist. June 23, 1995).
{¶4} Mitchell filed several postconviction motions in 2016 and 2017, raising
various arguments including requests for appointed counsel and to withdraw his plea.
The trial court denied the motions and its judgments were affirmed on appeal. State v.
Mitchell, 2017-Ohio-8440 (11th Dist.).
{¶5} In 2018, Mitchell filed a Motion to Dismiss the indictment, which the trial
court denied. On appeal, this court rejected his argument alleging a violation of his right
to a speedy trial. State v. Mitchell, 2019-Ohio-844 (11th Dist.).
{¶6} In 2019, Mitchell filed motions requesting a final order and a corrected
sentencing entry. Mitchell argued that a final order was not issued since charges in the
indictment remained unresolved. This court held that the doctrines of res judicata and
the law of the case barred consideration of this issue. State v. Mitchell, 2020-Ohio-3417,
¶ 71-72 (11th Dist.). We also ordered, however, that the lower court issue nunc pro tunc
entries to correct clerical errors relating to the improper reference to an amended
indictment, incorrect statute number, and failure to state the fact of conviction in the
sentencing entry. Id. at ¶ 90-91. The court issued such entries in January 2021.
{¶7} Mitchell filed a Motion to Vacate Void Judgment of Conviction in 2021,
Case Nos. 2024-P-0047, 2024-P-0051 arguing that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction in relation to his Gross Sexual
Imposition conviction. This court affirmed. State v. Mitchell, 2022-Ohio-1009 (11th Dist.).
{¶8} On October 17, 2023, Mitchell filed a Motion for a Final Appealable Order,
again arguing that a final order could not have been issued since charges against him
remained pending. On December 8, 2023, Mitchell filed a Motion to Dismiss Indictment,
arguing there was a violation of his right to a speedy trial due to pending charges. On
July 18, 2024, the trial court denied these motions.
{¶9} Mitchell timely appeals and raises the following assignments of error:
{¶10} “[1.] The trial court erred [by] denying Appellant’s Motion for a Final
Appealable Order.”
{¶11} “[2.] The refusal of the trial court to issue a final appealable order is denying
the Appellant the right to appeal his conviction and sentence.”
{¶12} “[3.] The refusal of the trial court to dismiss pending indicted charges
violates Appellant’s speedy trial rights.”
{¶13} We will address Mitchell’s first and second assignments of error jointly since
they both relate to the finality of the trial court’s judgment. In his first assignment of error,
Mitchell argues that there is no final judgment resolving the indicted charges of Rape and
Aggravated Burglary. He contends that since he pled guilty to charges not in the
indictment, i.e., Gross Sexual Imposition and Burglary, the Rape and Aggravated Burglary
charges were never resolved. In his second assignment of error, he argues that the lack
of a final order prevented him from appealing his convictions. The State contends these
arguments are barred by the doctrines of res judicata and the law of the case. We agree.
{¶14} “Res judicata bars the assertion of claims against a valid, final judgment of
Case Nos. 2024-P-0047, 2024-P-0051 conviction that have been raised or could have been raised on appeal.” State v. Ketterer,
2010-Ohio-3831, ¶ 59. Moreover, “‘[p]rinciples of res judicata prevent relief on
successive, similar motions raising issues which were or could have been raised
originally.’” (Citation omitted.) State v. Hall, 2011-Ohio-656, ¶ 7 (11th Dist.); also State
v. Bene, 2020-Ohio-1560, ¶ 14 (11th Dist.) (“[r]es judicata [bars] piecemeal claims in
successive postconviction relief petitions . . . that could have been raised, but were not,
in the first postconviction relief petition”) (citation omitted).
{¶15} The law of the case doctrine provides that “the decision of a reviewing court
in a case remains the law of that case on the legal questions involved for all subsequent
proceedings in the case at both the trial and reviewing levels.” Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio
St.3d 1, 3 (1984). This rule “is necessary to ensure the consistency of results in a case,
to avoid endless litigation by settling the issues, and to preserve the structure of superior
and inferior courts as designed by the Ohio Constitution.” Id.
{¶16} Initially, although Mitchell argues that he was denied the right to appeal his
convictions due to the lack of a final order, this is inaccurate. He has pursued numerous
appeals and original actions before this court, all stemming from the same convictions.
Mitchell has had more than adequate opportunity to seek relief from this court, as
evidenced by the proceedings outlined above.
{¶17} Mitchell could have raised the arguments advanced here on direct appeal
and has in fact raised them in subsequent appeals, necessitating application of the
doctrine of res judicata. He has already advanced the arguments that the charges of
Rape and Aggravated Burglary were not disposed of in a final entry in prior appeals in
this court. “This court has emphasized that a defendant cannot use motions to reiterate
Case Nos. 2024-P-0047, 2024-P-0051 the same points and obtain additional opportunities to appeal.” State v. Feathers, 2024-
Ohio-5373, ¶ 11 (11th Dist.), citing State v. Sands, 2021-Ohio-659, ¶ 14 (11th Dist.)
(“Sands has repeatedly filed motion after motion in order to obtain final orders from which
he can appeal . . . .
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Mitchell, 2025-Ohio-809.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PORTAGE COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NOS. 2024-P-0047 2024-P-0051 Plaintiff-Appellee,
-v- Criminal Appeals from the Court of Common Pleas JAMES E. MITCHELL,
Defendant-Appellant. Trial Court No. 1993 CR 00294
OPINION
Decided: March 10, 2025 Judgment: Affirmed
Connie J. Lewandowski, Portage County Prosecutor, and Kristina K. Reilly, Assistant Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
James E. Mitchell, pro se, PID# A293-032, Marion Correctional Institution, 940 Marion- Williamsport Road, P.O. Box 57, Marion, OH 43301 (Defendant-Appellant).
SCOTT LYNCH, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, James E. Mitchell, appeals from the judgments of the
Portage County Court of Common Pleas, denying his motions to dismiss and for a final
order. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgments of the lower court.
{¶2} In October 1993, the Portage County Grand Jury indicted Mitchell for Rape,
which was an aggravated felony of the first degree, in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2), and
Aggravated Burglary, which was an aggravated felony of the first degree, in violation of
R.C. 2911.11(A)(1) and (3). In February 1994, Mitchell entered pleas of guilty to Gross
Sexual Imposition, a felony of the third degree, in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(4), and Burglary, a felony of the second degree, in violation of R.C. 2911.12(A)(1). The court
accepted the guilty pleas.
{¶3} Prior to sentencing, Mitchell filed a Motion to Withdraw Plea, which the trial
court denied. In June 1994, the court sentenced Mitchell to concurrent prison terms of
three to 15 years for Burglary and two years for Gross Sexual Imposition. Mitchell
appealed, arguing error in the denial of his Motion to Withdraw Plea. This court affirmed.
State v. Mitchell, 1995 WL 411830 (11th Dist. June 23, 1995).
{¶4} Mitchell filed several postconviction motions in 2016 and 2017, raising
various arguments including requests for appointed counsel and to withdraw his plea.
The trial court denied the motions and its judgments were affirmed on appeal. State v.
Mitchell, 2017-Ohio-8440 (11th Dist.).
{¶5} In 2018, Mitchell filed a Motion to Dismiss the indictment, which the trial
court denied. On appeal, this court rejected his argument alleging a violation of his right
to a speedy trial. State v. Mitchell, 2019-Ohio-844 (11th Dist.).
{¶6} In 2019, Mitchell filed motions requesting a final order and a corrected
sentencing entry. Mitchell argued that a final order was not issued since charges in the
indictment remained unresolved. This court held that the doctrines of res judicata and
the law of the case barred consideration of this issue. State v. Mitchell, 2020-Ohio-3417,
¶ 71-72 (11th Dist.). We also ordered, however, that the lower court issue nunc pro tunc
entries to correct clerical errors relating to the improper reference to an amended
indictment, incorrect statute number, and failure to state the fact of conviction in the
sentencing entry. Id. at ¶ 90-91. The court issued such entries in January 2021.
{¶7} Mitchell filed a Motion to Vacate Void Judgment of Conviction in 2021,
Case Nos. 2024-P-0047, 2024-P-0051 arguing that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction in relation to his Gross Sexual
Imposition conviction. This court affirmed. State v. Mitchell, 2022-Ohio-1009 (11th Dist.).
{¶8} On October 17, 2023, Mitchell filed a Motion for a Final Appealable Order,
again arguing that a final order could not have been issued since charges against him
remained pending. On December 8, 2023, Mitchell filed a Motion to Dismiss Indictment,
arguing there was a violation of his right to a speedy trial due to pending charges. On
July 18, 2024, the trial court denied these motions.
{¶9} Mitchell timely appeals and raises the following assignments of error:
{¶10} “[1.] The trial court erred [by] denying Appellant’s Motion for a Final
Appealable Order.”
{¶11} “[2.] The refusal of the trial court to issue a final appealable order is denying
the Appellant the right to appeal his conviction and sentence.”
{¶12} “[3.] The refusal of the trial court to dismiss pending indicted charges
violates Appellant’s speedy trial rights.”
{¶13} We will address Mitchell’s first and second assignments of error jointly since
they both relate to the finality of the trial court’s judgment. In his first assignment of error,
Mitchell argues that there is no final judgment resolving the indicted charges of Rape and
Aggravated Burglary. He contends that since he pled guilty to charges not in the
indictment, i.e., Gross Sexual Imposition and Burglary, the Rape and Aggravated Burglary
charges were never resolved. In his second assignment of error, he argues that the lack
of a final order prevented him from appealing his convictions. The State contends these
arguments are barred by the doctrines of res judicata and the law of the case. We agree.
{¶14} “Res judicata bars the assertion of claims against a valid, final judgment of
Case Nos. 2024-P-0047, 2024-P-0051 conviction that have been raised or could have been raised on appeal.” State v. Ketterer,
2010-Ohio-3831, ¶ 59. Moreover, “‘[p]rinciples of res judicata prevent relief on
successive, similar motions raising issues which were or could have been raised
originally.’” (Citation omitted.) State v. Hall, 2011-Ohio-656, ¶ 7 (11th Dist.); also State
v. Bene, 2020-Ohio-1560, ¶ 14 (11th Dist.) (“[r]es judicata [bars] piecemeal claims in
successive postconviction relief petitions . . . that could have been raised, but were not,
in the first postconviction relief petition”) (citation omitted).
{¶15} The law of the case doctrine provides that “the decision of a reviewing court
in a case remains the law of that case on the legal questions involved for all subsequent
proceedings in the case at both the trial and reviewing levels.” Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio
St.3d 1, 3 (1984). This rule “is necessary to ensure the consistency of results in a case,
to avoid endless litigation by settling the issues, and to preserve the structure of superior
and inferior courts as designed by the Ohio Constitution.” Id.
{¶16} Initially, although Mitchell argues that he was denied the right to appeal his
convictions due to the lack of a final order, this is inaccurate. He has pursued numerous
appeals and original actions before this court, all stemming from the same convictions.
Mitchell has had more than adequate opportunity to seek relief from this court, as
evidenced by the proceedings outlined above.
{¶17} Mitchell could have raised the arguments advanced here on direct appeal
and has in fact raised them in subsequent appeals, necessitating application of the
doctrine of res judicata. He has already advanced the arguments that the charges of
Rape and Aggravated Burglary were not disposed of in a final entry in prior appeals in
this court. “This court has emphasized that a defendant cannot use motions to reiterate
Case Nos. 2024-P-0047, 2024-P-0051 the same points and obtain additional opportunities to appeal.” State v. Feathers, 2024-
Ohio-5373, ¶ 11 (11th Dist.), citing State v. Sands, 2021-Ohio-659, ¶ 14 (11th Dist.)
(“Sands has repeatedly filed motion after motion in order to obtain final orders from which
he can appeal . . . . The purposes of res judicata are to promote finality and judicial
economy, principles which are particularly pertinent in the present case, where Sands
has filed 13 appeals and 10 original actions . . ., all stemming from the same
convictions.”).
{¶18} The law of the case doctrine also prevents this court from ruling anew on
these issues. This court previously rejected Mitchell’s contention that the Rape and
Aggravated Burglary charges remained pending in relation to “an alleged violation of his
speedy trial rights” since his pleas to lesser charges terminated the indictment. Mitchell,
2020-Ohio-3417, at ¶ 74 (11th Dist.), citing Mitchell, 2019-Ohio-844, at ¶ 21 (11th Dist.).
Thus, his arguments relating to the lack of a final order due to the allegedly pending
charges were barred by the doctrine of res judicata and the law of the case. Mitchell,
2020-Ohio-3417, at ¶ 70 and 74. While Mitchell argues that res judicata is inapplicable
where there is no final order, this court concluded that res judicata applies if a prior appeal
was litigated under an allegedly voidable sentencing entry, as was the entry in Mitchell’s
case. Id. at ¶ 46 and 71; see State v. Harper, 2020-Ohio-2913, ¶ 18 (“[i]f the entry were
merely voidable, res judicata would apply”). Finally, we emphasized that “Mitchell and
this court have always proceeded under the presumption that the sentencing entry was a
final appealable order” and thus, the law of the case doctrine precludes his argument. Id.
at ¶ 73; State v. Tenney, 2024-Ohio-5268, ¶ 22 (11th Dist.).
{¶19} In his reply brief, Mitchell argues that prior rulings on appeal do not preclude
Case Nos. 2024-P-0047, 2024-P-0051 him from raising the present arguments since the trial court issued new judgment entries
on January 29, 2021. As outlined above, the trial court issued corrected nunc pro tunc
entries pursuant to this court’s order on that date to resolve clerical errors. Those
corrected errors are unrelated to the issues raised in the present appeals.
{¶20} Further, this court has also rejected a similar argument raised by Mitchell:
“The fact that the trial court issued nunc pro tunc entries in 2021 pursuant to this court’s
directive in Mitchell IV does not preclude the application of the doctrine of res judicata. A
nunc pro tunc entry correcting nonsubstantive, clerical errors applies retrospectively to
the judgment it corrects and is not a new final order from which a new appeal may be
taken.” Mitchell, 2022-Ohio-1009, at ¶ 27 (11th Dist.). The issuance of these corrected
entries did not alter this court’s past holdings on the issues raised in these appeals and
does not preclude application of the doctrines of res judicata and the law of the case.
{¶21} The first and second assignments of error are without merit.
{¶22} In his third assignment of error, Mitchell argues that since he pled guilty to
charges not included in the indictment, the offenses charged in the indictment have
remained pending for thirty years and his speedy trial rights have been violated.
{¶23} As outlined above, Mitchell did not raise this issue on direct appeal but,
nonetheless, it has been addressed by this court in a prior appeal. This court held: “When
Mr. Mitchell pleaded guilty to lesser included charges in 1994, he was ‘terminating the
incident and could not be called on to account further on any charges regarding this
incident.’ . . . Thus, there are no charges pending.” Mitchell, 2019-Ohio-844, at ¶ 21
(11th Dist.). In the absence of pending charges, there is no speedy trial violation. The
assigned error is barred by the doctrine of res judicata and the law of the case.
Case Nos. 2024-P-0047, 2024-P-0051 {¶24} The third assignment of error is without merit.
{¶25} For the foregoing reasons, the judgments of the Portage County Court of
Common Pleas, denying Mitchell’s motions, are affirmed. Costs to be taxed against
appellant.
JOHN J. EKLUND, J.,
EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.,
concur.
Case Nos. 2024-P-0047, 2024-P-0051