[Cite as State v. Boware, 2023-Ohio-1874.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 30375
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
MELVIN L. BOWARE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
Appellant CASE No. CR 93 06 1412
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: June 7, 2023
CARR, Judge.
{¶1} Appellant, Melvin Boware, appeals the judgment of the Summit County Court of
Common Pleas. This Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} In 1993, Boware pleaded guilty to one count of gross sexual imposition. The trial
court imposed a one-year prison sentence that was suspended in favor of a two-year period of
probation. Boware successfully completed his probationary period.
{¶3} Approximately ten years ago, Boware began frequently filing motions in the trial
court attacking his 1993 conviction. The trial court has consistently denied these motions and its
judgments have been affirmed on appeal. See State v. Boware, 9th Dist. Summit No. 26952, 2013-
Ohio-5225; State v. Boware, 9th Dist. Summit No. 27446, 2014-Ohio-5779; State v. Boware, 9th
Dist. Summit No. 27975, 2016-Ohio-7024; State v. Boware, 9th Dist. Summit No. 28749, 2018-
Ohio-1488; State v. Boware, 9th Dist. Summit No. 29891, 2021-Ohio-2666.
2
{¶4} On February 14, 2022, Boware filed a motion for new trial on the basis of newly
discovered evidence. Boware claimed that the State had conspired to suppress exculpatory
testimony from a witness, P.A., whom Boware alleged to be a police informant. Boware submitted
a number of exhibits in support of his motion, including online docket summaries from two
criminal cases where P.A. pleaded guilty to grand theft in the Summit Country Court of Common
Pleas.1 In denying the motion, the trial court found that all of the materials that Boware claimed
to be newly discovered evidence were public record.
{¶5} Shortly thereafter, Boware filed another motion seeking leave to file a motion for
new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. Boware claimed that the State failed to
disclose an immunity deal where P.A. agreed to cooperate in Boware’s prosecution. In addition
to resubmitting the aforementioned online docket summaries, Boware submitted a document
labeled “Exhibit O[.]” Boware suggested that Exhibit O was a legal memorandum authored by an
unnamed Ninth District Court of Appeals judge that supported his theory with respect to P.A.’s
involvement in his case. On June 16, 2022, the trial court issued a journal entry concluding that
Boware’s motion was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. In reaching this conclusion, the trial
court determined that Boware had failed to identify any newly discovered evidence and that there
was no basis to conclude that Exhibit O was a valid document.2
{¶6} Boware filed a timely notice of appeal from the trial court’s June 16, 2022 judgment
entry.
1
The two cases involving P.A. occurred in 1992 and 1994, respectively.
In regard to Exhibit O, the trial court found that the document “d[id] not include a
2
signature, case number or any semblance of a judge’s findings of fact or conclusions of law.”
3
II.
{¶7} Boware has set forth 20 assignments of error in his merit brief which we decline to
quote here. Boware’s core argument on appeal is that the trial court erred by not granting the
requested relief because this case involves a fundamental miscarriage of justice.
{¶8} “Under the doctrine of res judicata, any issue that was or should have been litigated
in a prior action between the parties may not be relitigated.” State v. Zhao, 9th Dist. Lorain No.
03CA008386, 2004-Ohio-3245, ¶ 7, quoting State v. Meek, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 03CA008315,
2004-Ohio-1981, ¶ 9. Furthermore, as this Court has emphasized in Boware’s previous appeals,
“[t]o the extent that Boware challenges the validity of his plea, * * * this Court has held that an
offender may not raise issues in a successive motion to withdraw a guilty plea that could have been
raised in the initial motion.” Boware, 2018-Ohio-1488, at ¶ 7, citing Zhao at ¶ 7-8.
{¶9} Here, the trial court did not err in concluding that Boware’s motion was barred
under the doctrine of res judicata. In his prior attempts to attack his conviction, Boware has
advanced similar theories pertaining to P.A.’s involvement in his case. See, e.g., Boware, 2021-
Ohio-2666, at ¶ 8. All of the materials submitted by Boware in support of his most recent round
of motions were either public record or, in the case of Exhibit O, a nonprobative item that lacked
the markings of a valid document. Accordingly, Boware failed to identify newly discovered
evidence in support of his motions. As Boware’s most recent challenge to his conviction does not
involve any arguments that were either raised or could have been raised in a prior proceeding, he
is barred from raising them at this time under the doctrine of res judicata. See Zhao at ¶ 7; Boware,
2018-Ohio-1488, at ¶ 8.
{¶10} Boware’s assignments of error are overruled.
4
III.
{¶11} Boware’s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Summit County
Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy
of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period
for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to
mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the
docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
DONNA J. CARR
FOR THE COURT
HENSAL, P.J.
STEVENSON, J.
CONCUR.
5
APPEARANCES:
MELVIN L. BOWARE, pro se, Appellant.
SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and JACQUENETTE S. CORGAN, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.