On Friday, January 31, 2025, Charles L. Watkins filed a complaint for writ of prohibition in the Ohio Supreme Court against the Sixth District Court of Appeals justices. Watkins, who is currently incarcerated at the North Central Correctional Institution in Marion, Ohio, claims that the appellate court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his first appeal filed in 1985.

In his complaint, Watkins asserts that the Sixth District Court of Appeals accepted his notice of appeal without confirming whether the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas had issued a final, appealable judgment. He argues that the court’s acceptance of jurisdiction was improper and that the actions taken by the Sixth District on August 21, 1985, were unauthorized due to the absence of a valid judgment entry from the lower court.

Watkins’ legal troubles trace back to a jury trial held in the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, where he was convicted of aggravated murder. He contends that after his conviction on August 3, 1985, Judge Kenneth A. Rohrs failed to properly document the judgment entry in accordance with relevant Ohio laws. Specifically, he argues that the judgment entry did not state the fact of his conviction, was not signed by Judge Rohrs, and was never journalized by the Lucas County Clerk of Courts.

According to the complaint, the jury found Watkins guilty of aggravated murder related to the death of Kent Farison but did not include a finding on the underlying felony of aggravated burglary, which he claims is a critical element for a valid conviction. Watkins maintains that the lack of a clear judgment entry means that the Sixth District Court of Appeals did not have the jurisdiction to hear his appeal, as required by Ohio law.

The complaint cites Article IV, Section 3(B)(2) of the Ohio Constitution, which grants the Sixth District Court of Appeals the authority to review final and appealable orders from lower courts. Watkins argues that because the lower court’s order was not final, the appellate court should not have accepted his appeal. He seeks relief from the Supreme Court, requesting that it issue an order to correct what he describes as the unauthorized actions of the Sixth District Court of Appeals.

In addition to urging the Supreme Court to dismiss his prior appeal, Watkins asks the court to instruct the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas to issue a proper judgment entry that meets the legal requirements for finality and appealability. This includes issuing a judgment that clearly states the facts of his conviction, includes the judge’s signature, and is properly journalized by the clerk.

Watkins’ filing is accompanied by a memorandum in support of his complaint, where he reiterates his claims regarding the deficiencies in the judgment entry from the lower court. He emphasizes that the absence of these critical elements not only prevented him from being properly notified of his right to appeal but also rendered the appellate court’s acceptance of his case invalid.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.