On Wednesday, February 26, 2025, Charles L. Watkins filed a complaint for writ of prohibition in the Ohio Supreme Court against the Sixth District Court of Appeals. The complaint names several judges as respondents, including James D. Jensen, Thomas J. Osowik, Mark L. Pietrykowski, Arlene Singer, and Stephen A. Yarbrough.

Watkins, currently incarcerated at the North Central Correctional Institution in Marion, Ohio, asserts that the Sixth District Court of Appeals acted without proper jurisdiction in a previous case involving his first appeal. He claims that the court accepted his appeal without determining whether the lower court had issued a final and appealable judgment. The original case, overseen by Judge Kenneth A. Rohrs of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, stemmed from Watkins’ conviction for aggravated murder, which occurred in 1985.

The crux of Watkins’ argument revolves around the assertion that the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas failed to issue a judgment entry that conformed to Ohio law. Specifically, he points to deficiencies in the judgment entry filed on August 7, 1985, claiming it did not comply with Ohio Revised Code 2505.02(A)(1) and Criminal Rule 32(B), now (C). Watkins alleges that the entry failed to state the fact of his conviction and lacked the necessary signatures and journalization required for a valid judgment.

Watkins contends that because the judgment entry was not properly executed, the Sixth District Court of Appeals lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear his appeal. He argues that the court’s acceptance of his appeal on August 21, 1985, was unauthorized and therefore invalid. In his complaint, Watkins seeks an order from the Ohio Supreme Court directing the Sixth District Court to dismiss his appeal and instructing the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas to issue a proper judgment entry that addresses all required legal elements.

Additionally, Watkins claims that the judgment entry prepared by Judge Rohrs did not adequately dispose of all charges against him, particularly the purported aggravated burglary. He emphasizes that the trial jury never found him guilty of this underlying felony, and thus, the lack of a clear resolution on this matter further complicates the validity of his conviction.

In his memorandum in support of the complaint, Watkins references several precedential cases that illustrate the importance of proper judicial procedures, including the need for a signed judgment entry and the necessity for a judgment to be journalized to commence the appeal process. He notes that the absence of these elements renders a judgment non-final and not subject to appeal, which is the core of his argument against the Sixth District Court of Appeals.

Watkins maintains that he has legal standing to bring this action, as he is a resident of Ohio and claims his rights have been infringed upon due to the alleged procedural missteps by the court. His complaint underscores the legal principle that courts must adhere to established guidelines to ensure the fair administration of justice.

The Ohio Supreme Court has jurisdiction over this original action under Article IV, Section of the Ohio Constitution, which governs the state’s judicial powers. Watkins requests that the Supreme Court intervene to correct what he describes as an unauthorized action by the appellate court, thereby restoring his right to a fair appeal process.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.