On Friday, August 15, 2025, Douglas E. Haddix filed a complaint for a writ of prohibition in the Supreme Court of Ohio against several judges of the Fifth District Court of Appeals in Stark County.
The complaint names Judge William B. Hoffman, who presided over Haddix’s 1996 appeal, along with successor judges Craig Baldwin, Andrew J. King, Kevin W. Popham, Robert G. Montgomery, and David M. Gormley. Haddix, an inmate at Madison Correctional Institution, is acting as his own legal representative in this matter.
The complaint stems from a 1996 appellate case, State of Ohio v. Douglas E. Haddix, identified as Case No. 95-CA-0175, decided on June 3, 1996. Haddix’s appeal followed his conviction in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas on April 28, 1995. A jury found him guilty of two counts of rape, one count of felonious sexual penetration, one count of gross sexual imposition, and one count of endangering children.
On May 2, 1995, Judge Harry E. Klide issued a judgment entry sentencing Haddix to a combined term of 17 to 50 years. The sentence included 10 to 25 years for the two rape counts, 5 to 25 years for felonious sexual penetration, and two years for gross sexual imposition, to be served consecutively. No sentence was imposed for the endangering children charge.
Haddix’s complaint alleges that the May 2, 1995, judgment entry was not a final appealable order, rendering the Fifth District Court of Appeals’ decision to affirm it in 1996 invalid. The complaint argues that the judgment entry failed to comply with Ohio law because it imposed a single, combined sentence for the two rape counts rather than individual sentences for each count, as required by State v. Saxon (2006). Additionally, the lack of a sentence for the endangering children charge contributed to the order’s non-final status, according to the complaint.
The filing asserts that the Fifth District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the appeal due to the non-final nature of the judgment entry. It cites provisions of the Ohio Constitution, specifically Article IV, Section 3(B)(2), and Ohio Revised Code sections 2501.02, 2505.02, and 2505.03, as well as Appellate Rule 4, which require a final order for appellate jurisdiction. Haddix claims that Judge Hoffman and the successor judges failed to conduct a necessary review to ensure the judgment met these legal standards.
In his request for relief, Haddix seeks a writ of prohibition to nullify the 1996 appellate decision and restore his legal position prior to the court’s ruling. He further requests that the case be remanded to the Stark County Court of Common Pleas for a new hearing to produce a final appealable judgment. Additionally, Haddix is seeking attorney fees and any other equitable or legal relief available.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
