State v. Dixon, 2019 Ohio 230

In 2005 Dixon and three co-conspirators attempted to rob a Dayton residence; a resident was shot by a co-conspirator. Dixon was indicted for complicity to commit aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, felonious assault, and three firearm specifications.
Trial evidence showed Dixon planned the robbery, purchased clothing, drew a map, led co-conspirators to the residence, and supplied the weapon and ammunition. A jury convicted him and the court imposed a 21-year aggregate prison sentence.
Dixon pursued multiple appeals and postconviction actions (Dixon I–V), raising claims of ineffective assistance, prosecutorial misconduct, sentencing errors (including failure to merge allied offenses and imposition of consecutive sentences), judicial bias, and evidentiary insufficiency; prior appeals affirmed or rejected those claims.
He repeatedly filed pro se motions (including motions to vacate/ correct sentence and supplements) raising substantially the same issues already litigated. The trial court denied the most recent motions as barred by res judicata.
On this appeal the appellate court affirmed, holding Dixon’s claims were barred by res judicata because they were raised previously or could have been raised earlier.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance of trial/appellate counsel (failure to file motions, interview witnesses, call witnesses, prevent witness threats)	State: prior adjudications and record do not support relitigation; claims are barred	Dixon: counsel failed to file key pretrial motions, investigate and subpoena witnesses, or raise allied-offense issues on appeal	Barred by res judicata; overruled
Prosecutorial misconduct / presentation of false or coached testimony	State: no basis shown for relitigation; issues were or could have been raised earlier	Dixon: prosecutor knowingly used false testimony and coached witnesses	Barred by res judicata; overruled
Sentencing errors (failure to merge allied offenses, imposition of consecutive/ excessive sentence, disparity with co-conspirators, lack of statutory findings)	State: sentencing and merger claims were or could have been raised on direct appeal	Dixon: sentence void/illegal; allied offenses should have merged; Eighth Amendment violation	Barred by res judicata; overruled
Judicial bias / due process claims and repeated postconviction filings	State: multiple prior appeals/petitions dispose of these issues; successive petitions not permitted to relitigate same grounds	Dixon: trial judge biased and denied due process; filings should be considered	Barred by res judicata; overruled

Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379, 653 N.E.2d 226 (1995) (res judicata bars subsequent actions arising from same transaction)
State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 226 N.E.2d 104 (1967) (res judicata applies to issues raised or that could have been raised on direct appeal)
State v. Steffen, 70 Ohio St.3d 399, 639 N.E.2d 67 (1994) (trial courts need not entertain successive petitions alleging same grounds)