[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:
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[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