Billman v. Fredericks
2021 Ohio 2435
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- In 2012 Billman was convicted in Monroe County of multiple counts of rape and gross sexual imposition involving two children. He challenged venue on appeal; the Seventh District affirmed his convictions.
- Billman pursued an unsuccessful delayed appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court and an unsuccessful federal habeas petition.
- He then filed a habeas petition in Pickaway County (first petition) alleging the state failed to prove venue; the trial court dismissed it and this court affirmed, holding venue is not cognizable in habeas.
- Billman filed a second habeas petition in Pickaway County again arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction because venue was not proved; the trial court dismissed the second petition for failure to state a claim.
- The Fourth District Court of Appeals, on de novo review, affirmed the dismissal, holding (1) venue is not a jurisdictional defect cognizable in habeas and (2) the second, successive petition was barred by res judicata.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue/failure to prove venue renders the conviction void and habeas-appropriate | Billman: lack of proved venue deprived the trial court of jurisdiction, so habeas relief is proper | Warden: venue is not jurisdictional; claim is a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge and not cognizable in habeas | Held: Venue is not jurisdictional; not cognizable in habeas; habeas unavailable on this ground |
| Whether habeas is barred because an adequate remedy (appeal) existed | Billman: his appellate remedies were exhausted but the judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction so habeas is still available | Warden: direct appeal is an adequate remedy that precludes habeas; only a truly void judgment (lack of subject-matter jurisdiction) fits the exception | Held: Direct appeal is an adequate remedy; the void-judgment exception does not apply here |
| Whether the second petition is barred as successive (res judicata) | Billman: reasserts venue/jurisdiction claims in a second habeas petition | Warden: the claim was previously litigated; res judicata bars successive habeas petitions | Held: Petition is successive and barred by res judicata; dismissal appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- McKinney v. Haviland, 164 N.E.3d 415 (Ohio 2020) (habeas requires unlawful restraint and entitlement to immediate release)
- Billiter v. Banks, 988 N.E.2d 556 (Ohio 2013) (habeas unavailable when an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law exists)
- Leyman v. Bradshaw, 59 N.E.3d 1236 (Ohio 2016) (void-judgment exception to the adequate-remedy rule where court lacked jurisdiction)
- State ex rel. Whitt v. Harris, 137 N.E.3d 71 (Ohio 2019) (venue is not a jurisdictional element of a criminal offense)
- Jackson v. Johnson, 986 N.E.2d 989 (Ohio 2013) (direct appeal is an adequate remedy that precludes habeas, even if unsuccessful)
- Childers v. Wingard, 700 N.E.2d 588 (Ohio 1998) (unsuccessful appeal does not make habeas available)