Smith v. Buchanan, 2014 Ohio 459

Background

In 2003 Smith pled guilty to aggravated robbery with a firearm specification; the court sentenced him to 9 years plus 1 year consecutive and awarded 86 days jail-time credit.
Smith appealed; the Tenth District affirmed and this court declined jurisdiction. He later withdrew that plea and in 2007 entered a new plea to aggravated robbery (no firearm spec) and a count for attempted weapons under disability; the court resentenced him to 9 years plus 6 months consecutive and the judgment entry showed 1,825 days jail credit.
In 2008 the trial court granted judicial release; in 2009 Smith was indicted on new charges, pled guilty to attempted felonious assault, was sentenced to 4 years consecutive, and the trial court revoked his 2003-case community control and returned him to prison with 2,312 days jail credit.
On direct appeal from the 2009 proceedings the Tenth District remanded for recalculation of jail-time credit (Smith claimed 154 additional days); this court declined review.
Smith repeatedly challenged the 2007 plea/resentencing as void under State ex rel. Special Prosecutors v. Judges, Court of Common Pleas (arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction to accept the withdrawn/modified plea after his earlier appeal), lost multiple times in trial and appellate courts, filed original actions in this court (one dismissed on merits), and then filed a habeas petition in the Seventh District seeking immediate release.
The Seventh District denied habeas relief, finding Smith could not show entitlement to immediate release and that res judicata and prior opportunity to litigate precluded habeas; Smith appealed to this court.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction under State ex rel. Special Prosecutors to accept Smith’s 2007 modified plea and resentence him after the Tenth District affirmed the earlier conviction	Smith: Special Prosecutors bars the trial court from withdrawing/accepting a new plea after an appeal has been reviewed; therefore the 2007 plea and sentence are void	State (Buchanan): Smith already litigated this argument repeatedly; the trial court and courts of appeals rejected it and res judicata bars relitigation	Court: Claim barred by res judicata; prior rulings foreclose relitigation and Smith’s repeated challenges fail
Whether Smith is entitled to habeas corpus relief (immediate release) even if the 2007 plea were void	Smith: If the 2007 plea/resentence are void, he is unlawfully confined and entitled to immediate release via habeas	State: Even assuming merit, Smith cannot show entitlement to immediate release and habeas is inappropriate because adequate remedies were available and used (and unsuccessfully)	Court: Even if not barred, Smith failed to demonstrate entitlement to immediate release; habeas relief denied

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Special Prosecutors v. Judges, Court of Common Pleas, 55 Ohio St.2d 94 (trial court lacks jurisdiction to grant Crim.R. 32.1 withdrawal after appellate review)
Smith v. Sheward, 130 Ohio St.3d 1483 (Ohio 2011) (relator voluntarily dismissed original action)
Smith v. Sheward, 131 Ohio St.3d 1454 (Ohio 2012) (court dismissed second original-action challenge)
State v. Smith, 127 Ohio St.3d 1536 (Ohio 2011) (this court declined jurisdiction on related appeal)
State ex rel. O’Donnell v. Vogelgesang, 91 Ohio App.3d 585 (12th Dist. 1993) (dismissal of an original action operates as a judgment on the merits)