State ex rel. Kendrick v. Parker (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 1509

In 2004 Kendrick was indicted on multiple counts including Indictment C (rape and kidnapping); in 2005 he pled guilty to seven first‑degree rape counts, including the count in Indictment C, and received lengthy terms of imprisonment.
The Second District affirmed; this court reversed in 2006 for resentencing under Foster and the trial court reimposed the same sentences.
In 2018 Kendrick filed a petition for a writ of prohibition and/or mandamus, alleging the sentencing court lacked jurisdiction to sentence him on the rape count in Indictment C because the prosecutor had dismissed that indictment.
The trial‑court judges changed; the successor judge moved for dismissal/summary judgment arguing the claim was not a jurisdictional defect and had remedies at law; the court of appeals granted summary judgment for the judge on two independent grounds.
The court of appeals concluded Kendrick failed to show the sentencing court patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction or that he lacked an adequate legal remedy, and also held Kendrick’s claim was barred by res judicata based on his earlier motion to withdraw his guilty pleas (denied and affirmed on appeal).
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals’ judgment, resolving the case on res judicata and declining to address the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentencing court patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction to sentence Kendrick on Indictment C because the indictment was dismissed	Kendrick: Indictment C was dismissed, so the court had no jurisdiction to sentence him on that count	Parker: Any dismissal (if it occurred) would be a procedural error, not a lack of jurisdiction; claim previously litigated	Court: Did not reach merits; res judicata bars the claim (affirmed)
Whether Kendrick lacked an adequate remedy at law (prerequisite for extraordinary writ)	Kendrick: No adequate remedy at law exists for this alleged jurisdictional defect	Parker: Adequate legal remedies exist; claim not appropriate for writ	Court of appeals: Kendrick failed to show lack of jurisdiction or lack of adequate remedy; Supreme Court affirmed on res judicata grounds
Whether res judicata precludes Kendrick’s petition given prior motion to withdraw guilty pleas	Kendrick: Brought a new petition asserting the indictment was dismissed	Parker: The issue was previously raised and decided (motion to withdraw denied and appellate decision affirmed)	Court: Res judicata bars the claim; judgment affirmed

State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006) (declared portions of Ohio’s felony‑sentencing scheme unconstitutional)
In re Ohio Criminal Sentencing Statutes Cases, 109 Ohio St.3d 411 (2006) (remanded cases for resentencing after Foster)
Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379 (1995) (explains res judicata includes claim and issue preclusion)
State ex rel. Robinson v. Huron Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 143 Ohio St.3d 127 (2015) (final merits judgment bars subsequent action on same claim)