On Monday, September 29, 2025, Robert Bates, an inmate at Toledo Correctional Institution, filed a notice of appeal in the Ohio Supreme Court, challenging a decision from the Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals Eighth Appellate District. The appeal, case number 2025-115147, targets a ruling involving Judge Maureen Clancy, whom Bates accuses of overstepping jurisdiction.

The dispute stems from a September 15, 2025, decision by the Eighth District Court of Appeals, which dismissed Bates’ complaint seeking a writ of prohibition. Bates had requested the court vacate a May 12, 2019, journal entry and bar Clancy from further jurisdiction in his case, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-07-501710-A. The appeals court, led by Administrative Judge Eileen A. Gallagher, ruled that Bates failed to substantiate his claims, noting the Ohio Supreme Court had already addressed the post-release control issue in a prior ruling.

Bates’ legal troubles began in 2008 when he was convicted of kidnapping with a sexual motivation specification, four counts of rape, and two counts of robbery, receiving a nine-year prison sentence. The original sentencing entry omitted mandatory post-release control notifications and any sex offender designation.

In 2018, after serving part of his sentence, Bates underwent a hearing where he was classified as an aggravated sexually oriented offender and informed of registration requirements under Ohio law. A subsequent May 12, 2019, entry corrected earlier omissions but was later contested by Bates, who argued it came after he had completed his sentence.

Bates claimed the 2018 hearing and 2019 entry were invalid, asserting he finished his sentence in case 501710 by May 2, 2018, and was serving a consecutive six-month term in an unrelated Scioto County case. He argued Clancy lacked jurisdiction to reclassify him as a sex offender or impose post-release control after the fact. However, the appeals court found the sex offender classification was a statutory consequence of his conviction, not a punitive sentence modification, and that Bates had an adequate remedy through direct appeal, which he did not fully pursue.

On June 24, 2025, Bates filed a premature motion for summary judgment, which was denied as moot after the court dismissed his case. Clancy’s motion to dismiss, filed July 28, 2025, was granted, with the court concluding Bates’ arguments did not justify a writ of prohibition.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.