Dixon v. Bowerman

 Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Sixth District Court of Appeals dismissing Appellant's petition seeking habeas relief, holding that the Sixth District correctly dismissed the petition.

Appellant was convicted of multiple crimes and sentenced to an aggregate prison term of twenty-one years. After his convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal Appellant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus asserting several grounds for relief. The Sixth District dismissed the petition, and the Supreme Court affirmed. The next year, Appellant filed a second petition seeking habeas relief. The Sixth District dismissed the petition, concluding that Appellant's claims were barred under the doctrine of res judicata and that Appellant had an adequate remedy at law. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that res judicata barred Appellant's successive habeas corpus petition.

Download PDF
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Dixon v. Bowerman, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-3049.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published. SLIP OPINION NO. 2020-OHIO-3049 DIXON, APPELLANT, v. BOWERMAN, WARDEN, APPELLEE. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Dixon v. Bowerman, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-3049.] Habeas corpus—Successive habeas corpus petition barred by res judicata—Court of appeals’ dismissal of petition affirmed. (No. 2019-1600—Submitted March 10, 2020—Decided May 27, 2020.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lucas County, No. L-19-1155, 2019-Ohio-4435. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} In 2006, appellant, William Dixon, was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 21 years after being convicted of multiple crimes. State v. Dixon, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 21823, 2008-Ohio-755, ¶ 13. His convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal. Id. at ¶ 53. {¶ 2} In 2018, Dixon filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Sixth District Court of Appeals asserting multiple grounds for relief. State ex rel. Dixon SUPREME COURT OF OHIO v. Bowerman, 156 Ohio St.3d 317, 2019-Ohio-716, 126 N.E.3d 1086, ¶ 2. The Sixth District dismissed the petition, id. at ¶ 3, and this court affirmed, id. at ¶ 5. {¶ 3} In 2019, Dixon filed another petition seeking habeas relief. The Sixth District dismissed that petition as well, holding that Dixon’s claims are barred under the doctrine of res judicata and that he had an adequate remedy at law. 2019-Ohio4435, ¶ 10-11. Dixon appeals to this court as of right. {¶ 4} Because “[r]es judicata bars petitioners from filing successive habeas corpus petitions,” Bevins v. Richard, 144 Ohio St.3d 54, 2015-Ohio-2832, 40 N.E.3d 1108, ¶ 4, we affirm. Dixon’s motion for leave to file an amended brief is denied. Judgment affirmed. O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, and STEWART, JJ., concur. _________________ William Dixon, pro se. Dave Yost, Attorney General, and William H. Lamb, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. _________________ 2
Primary Holding

The Supreme Court affirmed the Sixth District Court of Appeals' judgment dismissing Appellant's petition seeking habeas relief, holding that the Sixth District correctly dismissed the petition.


Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

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.