Dailey v. Wainwright (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 4519

James Dailey, an MCI inmate, has multiple convictions dating to 1984 with repeated paroles and parole revocations leading to additional prison terms.
After 1991 and 1993 convictions, former R.C. 2929.41(B) required consecutive service, increasing his aggregate maximum; Dailey later contends a 1996 repeal changed that calculus for later convictions.
In 2000 and 2007 Dailey received five-year terms for offenses including failure to comply with a police officer; R.C. 2921.331(D) then required those sentences to be served consecutively to other prison terms.
Dailey contends that, because of statutory changes, his aggregate maximum expired in 2014 and that his continued confinement is unlawful.
Dailey previously filed multiple habeas petitions asserting the same expiration claim; a 2018 wrongful-imprisonment action (Court of Claims/Tenth District) rejected his claim and concluded his sentence runs until 2023.
The Third District dismissed Dailey’s 2019 habeas petition on res judicata grounds (successive habeas) and on the merits that his sentence does not expire until 2023; the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Dailey's maximum aggregate sentence expired in 2014, entitling him to habeas relief	Dailey: statutory repeal and construction mean 2000/2007 five-year terms run concurrently, so aggregate expired 2014	Wainwright: mandatory consecutive provisions (R.C. 2921.331(D)) and prior rulings mean aggregate extends to 2023	Court: did not reach merits because res judicata bars the petition; Third District also found sentence runs to 2023
Whether the 2019 habeas petition is barred as a successive petition by res judicata	Dailey: renewed the same claim despite prior denials	Wainwright: Dailey previously raised same arguments and lost in at least two habeas actions; thus claim is barred	Court: Petition is successive and barred by res judicata; dismissal affirmed
Whether summary judgment was appropriately granted (standard/procedure)	Dailey: opposed Wainwright’s motion	Wainwright: submitted outside evidence; trial court considered it; summary judgment appropriate	Court: reviewed de novo, presumed summary judgment granted, and affirmed based on res judicata

Dailey v. Wainwright, 156 Ohio St.3d 510 (prior appeal affirming dismissal under R.C. 2725.04(D))
Doe v. Shaffer, 90 Ohio St.3d 388 (standard of review for summary judgment is de novo)
Brooks v. Kelly, 144 Ohio St.3d 322 (res judicata bars subsequent actions on same claim between same parties)
Bevins v. Richard, 144 Ohio St.3d 54 (res judicata principle applies to successive habeas petitions)