Orr v. Mack

Ohio Supreme Court

Orr v. Mack

1998 Ohio 32, 83 Ohio St. 3d 429

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 28, 1998

Docket1998-0859

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1998 Ohio 32 (Orr v. Mack) 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

Orr v. Mack, 1998 Ohio 32, 83 Ohio St. 3d 429 (Ohio 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 83 Ohio St.3d 429.]

ORR, APPELLANT, v. MACK, WARDEN, APPELLEE. [Cite as Orr v. Mack, 1998-Ohio-32.] Habeas corpus—Court of appeals properly dismissed petition, when. (No. 98-859—Submitted September 29, 1998—Decided October 28, 1998.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Madison County, No. CA98-01-002. __________________ {¶ 1} In 1996, the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas convicted appellant, Roland Orr, of aggravated trafficking in drugs and sentenced him to a prison term of seven to twenty-five years. In 1998, Orr filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Madison County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel appellee, Lawrence Mack, his prison warden, to immediately release him. Orr claimed that his criminal complaint and indictment were void. The court of appeals granted appellee’s Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion and dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. {¶ 2} This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. __________________ Roland Orr, pro se. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 3} Orr asserts that the court of appeals erred by dismissing his habeas corpus petition. For the following reasons, however, Orr’s assertion lacks merit. {¶ 4} First, as the court of appeals held, habeas corpus is not available to attack the validity or sufficiency of the charging instrument. State ex rel. Beaucamp v. Lazaroff (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 237, 238, 673 N.E.2d 1273, 1274. The manner by which an accused is charged with a crime is procedural rather than jurisdictional, and after a conviction for crimes charged in an indictment, the judgment binds the SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

defendant for the crime for which he was convicted. Id., citing Wells v. Maxwell (1963), 174 Ohio St. 198, 200, 22 O.O.2d 147, 148, 188 N.E.2d 160, 161, and State v. Wozniak (1961), 172 Ohio St. 517, 522-523, 18 O.O.2d 58, 61, 178 N.E.2d 800, 804. {¶ 5} Second, Orr had an adequate legal remedy by direct appeal to challenge the validity or sufficiency of the complaint and indictment. State ex rel. Simpson v. Lazaroff (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 571, 664 N.E.2d 937. {¶ 6} Finally, Orr did not verify his petition as required by R.C. 2725.04. State ex rel. Ranzy v. Coyle (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 109, 110, 689 N.E.2d 563, 564. {¶ 7} Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. Judgment affirmed. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. __________________

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

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 83 Ohio St.3d 429.]

ORR, APPELLANT, v. MACK, WARDEN, APPELLEE. [Cite as Orr v. Mack, 1998-Ohio-32.] Habeas corpus—Court of appeals properly dismissed petition, when. (No. 98-859—Submitted September 29, 1998—Decided October 28, 1998.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Madison County, No. CA98-01-002. __________________ {¶ 1} In 1996, the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas convicted appellant, Roland Orr, of aggravated trafficking in drugs and sentenced him to a prison term of seven to twenty-five years. In 1998, Orr filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Madison County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel appellee, Lawrence Mack, his prison warden, to immediately release him. Orr claimed that his criminal complaint and indictment were void. The court of appeals granted appellee’s Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion and dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. {¶ 2} This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. __________________ Roland Orr, pro se. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 3} Orr asserts that the court of appeals erred by dismissing his habeas corpus petition. For the following reasons, however, Orr’s assertion lacks merit. {¶ 4} First, as the court of appeals held, habeas corpus is not available to attack the validity or sufficiency of the charging instrument. State ex rel. Beaucamp v. Lazaroff (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 237, 238, 673 N.E.2d 1273, 1274. The manner by which an accused is charged with a crime is procedural rather than jurisdictional, and after a conviction for crimes charged in an indictment, the judgment binds the SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

defendant for the crime for which he was convicted. Id., citing Wells v. Maxwell (1963), 174 Ohio St. 198, 200, 22 O.O.2d 147, 148, 188 N.E.2d 160, 161, and State v. Wozniak (1961), 172 Ohio St. 517, 522-523, 18 O.O.2d 58, 61, 178 N.E.2d 800, 804. {¶ 5} Second, Orr had an adequate legal remedy by direct appeal to challenge the validity or sufficiency of the complaint and indictment. State ex rel. Simpson v. Lazaroff (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 571, 664 N.E.2d 937. {¶ 6} Finally, Orr did not verify his petition as required by R.C. 2725.04. State ex rel. Ranzy v. Coyle (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 109, 110, 689 N.E.2d 563, 564. {¶ 7} Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. Judgment affirmed. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1998 Ohio 32, 83 Ohio St. 3d 429, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orr-v-mack-ohio-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack