State ex rel. Yauger v. Seidner

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Ohio » Supreme Court » 1996 » State ex rel. Yauger v. Seidner

State: Ohio

Court: Supreme Court

Docket No: 1996-1009

Case Date: 11/06/1996

Plaintiff: State ex rel. Yauger

Defendant: Seidner

Preview:The State ex rel. Yauger, Appellant, v. Seidner, Warden, Appellee. (Two cases.)

The State ex rel. Kimbro, Appellant, v. Seidner, Warden, Appellee.

The State ex rel. McClutchen, Appellant, v. Seidner, Warden, Appellee.

The State ex rel. White, Appellant, v. Seidner, Warden, Appellee.

The State ex rel. Garcia, Appellant, v. Seidner, Warden, Appellee.

The State ex rel. Dix, Appellant, v. Seidner, Warden, Appellee.

[Cite as State ex rel. Yauger v. Seidner (1996),

Ohio St.3d

.]

Habeas corpus not available to challenge either the validity or the sufficiency of an indictment. (Nos. 96-1009, 96-1010, 96-1263, 96-1273, 96-1300, 96-1311 and 96-1351

-- Submitted September 10, 1996 -- Decided November 6, 1996.)

Appeals from the Court of Appeals for Lorain County, Nos. 96CA006362,

96CA006363, 96CA006375, 96CA006381, 96CA006385, 96CA006386 and

96CA006370.

These are appeals from dismissals of habeas corpus petitions filed in the

Court of Appeals for Lorain County by appellants, inmates incarcerated in the

Lorain Correctional Institution under the custody of appellee, Warden Larry

Seidner. In these seven cases, appellants filed similar form petitions for a writ of

habeas corpus in the court of appeals.

They alleged that their indictments

contained no allegation that the charged offenses were committed within the

territorial jurisdiction of their sentencing courts. The court of appeals granted

appellee's motions and dismissed the petitions.

These causes are now before this court upon appeals as of right.

____________________

Ricky Yauger, pro se.

Nathaniel Kimbro, pro se.

Phillip McClutchen, pro se.

David J. White, pro se.

Modesto Garcia, pro se.

Richard Dix, Jr., pro se.

Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, Charles L. Wille, Karl R. Wetzel,

Stuart A. Cole and Donald Gary Keyser, Assistant Attorneys General, for

appellee.

____________________

Per Curiam. Appellants assert in their propositions of law that the court of

appeals erred in dismissing their habeas corpus petitions. Appellants claim that 2

their indictments did not comply with R.C. 2941.03(D) because none of the

charges alleged that the offenses were committed within the territorial

jurisdictions of their sentencing courts. However, as we recently held in similar

appeals instituted by inmates at the same prison, these claims merely attack the

validity or sufficiency of their indictments and are cognizable on direct appeal

rather than via habeas corpus. State ex rel. Wilcox v. Seidner (1996), 76 Ohio

St.3d 412, 414-415, 667 N.E.2d 1220, 1222.

The court of appeals properly

dismissed appellants' petitions.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the court of appeals.

Judgments affirmed.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and

STRATTON, JJ., concur.

3

Download 1996-ohio-348.pdf