On Thursday, February 13, 2025, Douglas E. Haddix filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus and prohibition in the Supreme Court of Ohio against several judges involved in his previous legal proceedings. The respondents named in the complaint include Judge W. Scott Gwin, Judge William B. Hoffman, Judge Sheila G. Farmer, Judge Harry E. Klide, and Judge Frank G. Forchione, all associated with the Fifth District Court of Appeals and the Stark County Court of Common Pleas.

Haddix, currently incarcerated at the Madison Correctional Institution in London, Ohio, alleges that the actions of the respondents constitute fraud on the court. The complaint stems from Haddix’s ongoing legal battles following his sentencing in 1995 for multiple counts, including rape and felonious sexual penetration. The original sentence imposed by Judge Klide included concurrent and consecutive terms totaling up to 25 years.

In his complaint, Haddix details a series of legal maneuvers that began with his sentencing on April 28, 1995. He was sentenced to 10 to 25 years for two counts of rape and additional consecutive terms for other offenses. Judge Klide finalized this sentence on May 2, 1995, but the conviction and sentencing process has been scrutinized due to a nunc pro tunc entry filed on May 30, 1995. This entry purportedly corrected clerical errors in the original sentencing.

Haddix claims he discovered discrepancies in his sentencing documentation in 2011, prompting him to file a motion for resentencing with Judge Forchione, which was subsequently denied. He appealed the denial, and the Fifth District Court of Appeals, comprising Judges Gwin, Hoffman, and Farmer, upheld the decision. The appellate court stated that the nunc pro tunc entry merely corrected clerical omissions and did not affect the original sentence’s validity.

In a subsequent motion filed in November 2021, Haddix accused the prosecuting attorney of committing fraud during the trial process, asserting that the prosecution misrepresented his convictions. The Fifth District denied this motion, stating that the nunc pro tunc entry clarified prior judgments without altering the original findings.

Haddix’s attempts to rectify what he perceives as judicial misconduct continued with a writ of habeas corpus filed in the Twelfth District Court of Appeals. This writ was also denied, with the court concluding that the issues raised were not of a jurisdictional nature and that Haddix had other remedies available.

Following these setbacks, Haddix escalated his efforts by appealing to the Supreme Court of Ohio. The Supreme Court acknowledged the factual errors made by the Fifth District in its assessment of Haddix’s convictions but ultimately affirmed the Twelfth District’s decision regarding the writ of habeas corpus.

In his current complaint, Haddix asserts that the actions of the respondent judges in the Fifth District Court of Appeals and the Stark County Court of Common Pleas have deprived him of his legal rights and relief. He argues that the judges knowingly engaged in fraudulent practices that undermined the integrity of the court system.

Haddix’s legal history indicates a series of unsuccessful appeals and motions aimed at correcting his sentencing and addressing perceived injustices stemming from his trial. He claims that he has no adequate remedy at law other than the current writ sought from the Supreme Court, emphasizing his belief that the judicial processes he has encountered have been tainted by misconduct.

The complaint outlines specific claims against each respondent, accusing them of acting with malice and intent to deprive him of justice. Haddix seeks not only a writ of mandamus and prohibition but also the court’s intervention to vacate prior judgments that he claims were obtained through fraudulent means.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.