Galloway v. Money

100 Ohio St. 3d 74
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 8, 2003
DocketNo. 2003-1085
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 100 Ohio St. 3d 74 (Galloway v. Money) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Galloway v. Money, 100 Ohio St. 3d 74 (Ohio 2003).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} In February 1990, the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas convicted appellant, James Galloway, of three counts of rape and two counts of gross sexual imposition and sentenced him to prison. On appeal, his convictions and sentence [75]*75were affirmed. State v. Galloway (Nov. 8, 1991), Lucas App. No. L-90-056, 1991 WL 254216.

James Galloway, pro se. Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Stuart A. Cole, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

{¶ 2} According to Galloway, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in January 2000 in the common pleas court, and his petition was subsequently denied.

{¶ 3} In April 2003, Galloway filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of Appeals for Marion County. Galloway claimed that his trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict and sentence him because of ambiguities in his indictments. Galloway further claimed, among other things, that he was actually innocent of the crimes of which he was convicted.

{¶ 4} In May 2003, the court of appeals sua sponte dismissed Galloway’s petition.

{¶ 5} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

{¶ 6} The court of appeals correctly concluded that Galloway’s primary claims were not cognizable in habeas corpus. See Turner v. Ishee, 98 Ohio St.3d 411, 2003-Ohio-1671, 786 N.E.2d 54, ¶ 7 (“habeas corpus is not available to test the validity or sufficiency of an indictment or other charging instrument”); State ex rel. Bruggeman v. Leonard (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 298, 299, 714 N.E.2d 921 (“Habeas corpus will not issue to raise claims of insufficiency of evidence”).

{¶ 7} Moreover, res judicata barred Galloway from filing successive habeas corpus petitions when he could have raised the same claims in his previous petition. State ex rel Johnson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (2002), 95 Ohio St.3d 70, 71, 765 N.E.2d 356.

{¶ 8} Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor and O’Donnell, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State ex rel. Tarr v. Williams
857 N.E.2d 1225 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2006)
Williamson v. Williams
103 Ohio St. 3d 25 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
100 Ohio St. 3d 74, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/galloway-v-money-ohio-2003.