Freeman v. Tate
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27, 1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer. Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S. Kobalka, Reporter, or Yitzchak E. Gold, Assistant Court Reporter. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010. Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome. NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the full texts of the opinions after they have been released electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions. The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound volumes of the Ohio Official Reports. Freeman, Appellant, v. Tate, Warden, Appellee. [Cite as Freeman v. Tate (1992), Ohio St.3d .] Habeas corpus -- Doctrine of res judicata applicable to successive habeas corpus petitions. (No. 92-993 -- Submitted October 13, 1992 -- Decided December 11, 1992.) Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Scioto County, No. 91 CA 2024. Appellant, Jerome Blair Freeman, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging he was being illegally detained by appellee, Arthur Tate, Jr., the Warden at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, because his sentence had expired in October 1977, and because he did not understand that consecutive sentences would be imposed on him. He also alleged he was being withheld from the general prison population for having prevailed in an earlier case, State ex rel. Freeman v. Morris (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 107, 579 N.E.2d 702. Appellee filed a motion to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, which the court of appeals overruled. Appellee then filed a motion for summary judgment alleging, inter alia, that appellant had previously raised the expiration-of-sentence issue and that it was res judicata. Appellant then filed a "motion to grant writ," arguing sentence miscalculation extending as far back as 1983, but supplied no details concerning his current isolation claim. The court of appeals granted the motion for summary judgment and denied the petition, finding the issue of expiration of sentence to be res judicata and that appellant's other claims did not state claims on which relief could be granted. The cause is before this court upon an appeal as of right. Jerome Blair Freeman, pro se. Lee I. Fisher, Attorney General, and John J. Gideon, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Per Curiam. We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. Res judicata precludes the filing of successive habeas corpus petitions. Hudlin v. Alexander (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 153, 586 N.E.2d 86. In this case, the record demonstrates that appellant has previously filed at least one habeas corpus action, No. 1352, in the Court of Appeals for Scioto County, in which the expiration-of-sentence claim could have been raised. Moreover, his claim that he misunderstood sentencing procedures does not challenge the jurisdiction of the sentencing court. Wireman v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1988), 38 Ohio St. 3d 322, 528 N.E.2d 173. As the court of appeals essentially held, appellant's claim of segregation from the general prison population does not challenge the jurisdiction of the sentencing court, and we decline to speculate on the present facts whether any remedy of which the court of appeals has original jurisdiction might be applicable, since appellant presented no evidence of an illegal detention. The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. Judgment affirmed. Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
