On Tuesday, August 5, 2025, Cornelius Patterson filed a notice of appeal in the Supreme Court of Ohio, challenging a decision from the Hancock County Court of Appeals, Third Appellate District. Patterson, an inmate at Marion Correctional Institution, is acting as his own legal representative in the appeal against Hancock County Common Pleas Court Judge Jonathan P. Starn.

The appeal stems from a June 23, 2025, ruling by the Third Appellate District, which dismissed Patterson’s request for a writ of mandamus. Patterson had sought to compel Judge Starn to hold a resentencing hearing with appointed counsel, following a prior court decision.

The case originates from Patterson’s 2011 conviction, where a jury found him guilty of aggravated murder, first-degree felony burglary, second-degree felony improper discharge of a firearm into a habitation, and third-degree felony tampering with evidence, all with firearm specifications. He was sentenced to a total of 37 years in prison.

In 2019, Patterson filed a pro se motion to correct what he claimed was a void judgment, citing issues with the imposition of post-release control. The trial court held a hearing under Ohio Revised Code Section 2929.191(C), which Patterson appealed, arguing he was denied his right to counsel.

In 2020, the Third Appellate District reversed the trial court’s decision, questioning whether Patterson had abandoned self-representation and requested counsel. The case was sent back to the trial court to determine if counsel should be appointed.

However, before the new hearing could occur, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a ruling in State v. Harper (2020-Ohio-2913), stating that sentencing errors do not render a judgment void but must be raised on direct appeal or they are barred by res judicata. Based on this, the trial court found no hearing was needed, as Patterson’s claims were barred, and denied his motion. The Third Appellate District upheld this decision in 2021.

In his mandamus action, Patterson argued that the trial court failed to follow the appellate court’s remand order. Judge Starn’s legal team moved to dismiss the mandamus complaint, asserting that Patterson had an adequate legal remedy through direct appeal and that his claims were barred by res judicata.

The Third Appellate District agreed, dismissing the mandamus complaint, stating Patterson could not prove entitlement to the writ under Civil Rule 12(B)(6).

The Supreme Court of Ohio will now review the Third Appellate District’s dismissal of the mandamus action.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.