Bevins v. Richard
144 Ohio St. 3d 54
| Ohio | 2015Background
- Andrew Bevins Jr., incarcerated after convictions for aggravated burglary and rape, challenged his convictions via a habeas corpus petition filed in the Twelfth District Court of Appeals (Aug. 22, 2014).
- Bevins contended the trial court declared a mistrial during a third retrial but failed to journalize that mistrial; he argued the court lacked jurisdiction to try him a fourth time, rendering his convictions invalid.
- The warden moved to dismiss; the court of appeals granted the motion, and Bevins appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.
- Bevins had previously filed a habeas petition in 2012 raising a speedy-trial claim; the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of that petition.
- Bevins also filed motions for default judgment (Civ.R. 55(A)) and summary judgment (Civ.R. 56) in the Ohio Supreme Court, which the court addressed as improperly invoking the Civil Rules on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bevins’s habeas petition is barred as successive/res judicata | Bevins argued the mistrial was not journalized, so the trial court lacked jurisdiction for the later trial; new claim justifies habeas relief | State argued Bevins previously litigated habeas and res judicata bars successive habeas petitions | Held: Petition barred by res judicata because Bevins could have raised the claim in his earlier habeas action |
| Whether habeas was appropriate despite available ordinary remedies | Bevins sought immediate habeas release based on jurisdictional defect | State argued Bevins had an adequate remedy by appeal or postconviction procedures; habeas is not a substitute | Held: Habeas denied; Bevins had an adequate remedy on direct appeal/postconviction review |
| Whether Civil Rules (Civ.R. 55(A), 56) apply in this appellate proceeding | Bevins moved for default and summary judgment under Civil Rules in the Supreme Court | State argued Civil Rules do not generally apply on appeal; Sup.Ct.Prac.R. and Civ.R. 1(C) limit application | Held: Motions denied; Civil Rules do not apply to appeals of right in this court |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Bevins v. Johnson, 133 Ohio St.3d 80 (affirming dismissal of Bevins’s earlier habeas petition)
- State ex rel. Childs v. Lazaroff, 90 Ohio St.3d 519 (res judicata bars successive habeas corpus petitions)
- Daniel v. State, 98 Ohio St.3d 467 (habeas corpus is not a substitute for appeal or postconviction relief)
- In re Piazza, 7 Ohio St.2d 102 (same: limits on habeas as substitute for other remedies)