Marion Correctional Institution inmate Prince Charles Cotten Sr.

Marion Correctional Institution inmate Prince Charles Cotten Sr.

The Supreme Court of Ohio today upheld a life sentence for a man convicted of killing a police officer. Prince Charles Cotten Sr., also known as Charles D. Cotton, was convicted of aggravated murder in 1976 and sentenced to death.

Cotten filed a writ of habeas corpus with the Third District Court of Appeals, contending that the warden of the Marion Correctional Institution, where Cotten is serving his life sentence, must justify his continued incarceration. Cotten argued he should be released from prison because he was convicted under “an unconstitutional statute.”

In a unanimous per curiam decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals’ judgment.

Inmate Contests Revised Sentence
After Cotten’s conviction, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1978 declared Ohio’s then-existing death penalty statute unconstitutional. Shortly thereafter, the Supreme Court of Ohio modified Cotten’s sentence to life imprisonment.

When Cotten sought a writ in July 2023, the Third District dismissed Cotten’s complaint. Cotten appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.

Cotten maintains that since his life sentence was illegally imposed, he should have been released after the Ohio death penalty was declared unconstitutional. Commuting his sentence to life imprisonment was illegal, Cotten argued.

The Court ruled the alleged sentencing errors cannot be addressed by seeking a writ of habeas corpus. This is true even for sentences alleged to be unconstitutional, the opinion stated.

Judicial Panel Should Have Considered Sentence, Inmate Maintained
Cotten also argued his sentence was invalid because the Ohio Revised Code requires that a three-judge trial court resentence him, not the Supreme Court.

Cotten argued that R.C. 2929.06(A) states a three-judge panel must sentence him. In addition, he maintained Rule 32 of the Ohio Criminal Rules of Procedure also directed a trial court to impose his sentence.

The Supreme Court pointed out the law requiring a three-judge panel for resentencing was not required until 1981, three years after Cotten’s death penalty was commuted. The law is not applicable to his case, the Court stated.

As to the procedural rule, the opinion noted, “the Rules of Criminal Procedure are inapplicable to cases on appeal.”

Cotten represented himself for this appeal, following an appeal in 2003 on similar grounds, which was rejected by the Twelfth District Court of Appeals.

2023-1503 Cotten v. Frederick, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-3250.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.

PDF files may be viewed, printed, and searched using the free Acrobat^® Reader
Acrobat Reader is a trademark of Adobe Systems Incorporated.