Wordlow v. Davis, Warden ( 2023 )

[Cite as Wordlow v. Davis, Warden, 2023-Ohio-675.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
TRUMBULL COUNTY
ERIC WORDLOW, CASE NO. 2022-T-0121
Petitioner,
Original Action for Writ of Habeas Corpus
- vs -
ANTHONY DAVIS, WARDEN,
Respondent.
PER CURIAM
OPINION
Decided: March 6, 2023
Judgment: Petition dismissed
Eric Wordlow, pro se, PID: A743-919, Trumbull Correctional Institution, 5701 Burnett
Road, P.O. Box 640, Leavittsburg, OH 44430 (Petitioner).
Dave Yost, Ohio Attorney General, State Office Tower, 30 East Broad Street, 16th Floor,
Columbus, OH 43215 (For Respondent).
PER CURIAM.
{¶1} Petitioner, Eric Wordlow (“Mr. Wordlow”), seeks a writ of habeas corpus
against respondent, Anthony Davis, Warden of the Trumbull Correctional Institution
(“respondent”), for his immediate release from prison. Respondent moves to dismiss the
petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
{¶2} Because Mr. Wordlow has been released from prison, his petition is moot.
Further, since this is a successive petition for a writ of habeas corpus, in which Mr.
Wordlow raises the same claims, his petition is additionally barred by the doctrine of res
judicata. Respondent’s motion is granted, and the petition is dismissed.
{¶3} When presented with a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss, the factual
allegations of the complaint are accepted as true. It must appear beyond doubt that the
petitioner can prove no set of facts entitling him to relief. O’Brien v. Univ. Community
Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242, 327 N.E.2d 753 (1975), syllabus.
{¶4} “‘[H]abeas corpus in Ohio is generally appropriate in the criminal context
only if the petitioner is entitled to immediate release from prison or some type of physical
confinement.’” Smith v. Leis, 106 Ohio St.3d 309, 2005-Ohio-5125, 835 N.E.2d 5, ¶ 13,
quoting State ex rel. Smirnoff v. Greene, 84 Ohio St.3d 165, 167, 702 N.E.2d 423 (1998).
“If a habeas corpus petitioner seeking release is subsequently released, the petitioner’s
habeas corpus claim is normally rendered moot.” Larsen v. State, 92 Ohio St.3d 69, 69,
748 N.E.2d 72 (2001). Mr. Wordlow’s appeal is moot because the term of his sentence
has now expired, and he has been released from prison.
{¶5} Moreover, this is not a claim that is “capable of repetition, yet evading
review.” Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 17, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998); Larsen
at 69.
{¶6} Further, we note that the instant petition is additionally barred by the
doctrine of res judicata, since the issues raised are substantially the same as those raised
in Mr. Wordlow’s previous petition for habeas corpus, which we dismissed. In Wordlow
v. Bracy, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2022-T-0095, 2022-Ohio-4280, we found Mr. Wordlow
did not establish he was entitled to immediate release and that he had an adequate
remedy by way of appeal in which to raise his claims. Id. at ¶ 8-9. See State ex rel.
2
Case No. 2022-T-0121
Childs v. Lazaroff, 90 Ohio St.3d 519, 520, 739 N.E.2d 802 (2001) (“[R]es judicata is
applicable to successive habeas corpus petitions because habeas corpus petitioners
have the right to appeal adverse judgments in habeas corpus cases.”).
{¶7} Mr. Wordlow’s petition fails to state a claim upon which habeas relief can
be granted. Accordingly, respondent’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the petition for
a writ of habeas corpus is hereby dismissed.
{¶8} Petition dismissed.
JOHN J. EKLUND, P.J., MARY JANE TRAPP, J., MATT LYNCH, J., concur.
3
Case No. 2022-T-0121