State ex rel. Harsh v. Sheets

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Harsh v. Sheets

2012 Ohio 2368, 132 Ohio St. 3d 198

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMay 31, 2012

Docket2012-0093

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 2012 Ohio 2368 (State ex rel. Harsh v. Sheets) 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

State ex rel. Harsh v. Sheets, 2012 Ohio 2368, 132 Ohio St. 3d 198 (Ohio 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of appellant, Robert Harsh, for a writ of habeas corpus. Harsh previously unsuccessfully raised many of his same claims in his direct appeal, State v. Harsh, Butler App. No. CA2007-03-083, so res judicata bars him from using habeas corpus to obtain a successive appellate review of the same claims. See Roberts v. Knab, 131 Ohio St.3d 60, 2012-Ohio-56, 960 N.E.2d 457, ¶ 1.

{¶ 2} Moreover, because Harsh either raised or could have raised his claims in three previous state habeas corpus cases, res judicata also bars him from filing a successive habeas corpus petition. Nickelson v. Knab, 131 Ohio St.3d 199, 2012-Ohio-579, 963 N.E.2d 154, ¶ 1. Like the court of appeals in this case, we similarly dismissed a successive habeas corpus petition filed by Harsh in 2011. Harsh v. Knab, 128 Ohio St.3d 1498, 2011-Ohio-2420, 947 N.E.2d 681.

{¶ 3} Finally, Harsh’s claims are not cognizable in habeas corpus, and he had an adequate remedy by way of appeal to raise his claims. See Smith v. Smith, *199 123 Ohio St.3d 145, 2009-Ohio-4691, 914 N.E.2d 1036, ¶ 1 (claim that jury-verdict forms did not list essential elements of criminal offense); Haynes v. Voorhies, 110 Ohio St.3d 243, 2006-Ohio-4355, 852 N.E.2d 1198, ¶ 5 (claim challenging validity of amendment to an indictment); State ex rel. Austin v. Knab, 127 Ohio St.3d 118, 2010-Ohio-4982, 936 N.E.2d 958, ¶ 1 (claim of nonjurisdictional sentencing errors); Webber v. Kelly, 120 Ohio St.3d 440, 2008-Ohio-6695, 900 N.E.2d 175, ¶ 8 (claim challenging sufficiency of the evidence); Keith v. Bobby, 117 Ohio St.3d 470, 2008-Ohio-1443, 884 N.E.2d 1067, ¶ 15 (claims of fraud upon the court and prosecutorial misconduct).

Robert Harsh, pro se.

Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp, and McGee Brown, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of appellant, Robert Harsh, for a writ of habeas corpus. Harsh previously unsuccessfully raised many of his same claims in his direct appeal, State v. Harsh, Butler App. No. CA2007-03-083, so res judicata bars him from using habeas corpus to obtain a successive appellate review of the same claims. See Roberts v. Knab, 131 Ohio St.3d 60, 2012-Ohio-56, 960 N.E.2d 457, ¶ 1.

{¶ 2} Moreover, because Harsh either raised or could have raised his claims in three previous state habeas corpus cases, res judicata also bars him from filing a successive habeas corpus petition. Nickelson v. Knab, 131 Ohio St.3d 199, 2012-Ohio-579, 963 N.E.2d 154, ¶ 1. Like the court of appeals in this case, we similarly dismissed a successive habeas corpus petition filed by Harsh in 2011. Harsh v. Knab, 128 Ohio St.3d 1498, 2011-Ohio-2420, 947 N.E.2d 681.

{¶ 3} Finally, Harsh’s claims are not cognizable in habeas corpus, and he had an adequate remedy by way of appeal to raise his claims. See Smith v. Smith, *199 123 Ohio St.3d 145, 2009-Ohio-4691, 914 N.E.2d 1036, ¶ 1 (claim that jury-verdict forms did not list essential elements of criminal offense); Haynes v. Voorhies, 110 Ohio St.3d 243, 2006-Ohio-4355, 852 N.E.2d 1198, ¶ 5 (claim challenging validity of amendment to an indictment); State ex rel. Austin v. Knab, 127 Ohio St.3d 118, 2010-Ohio-4982, 936 N.E.2d 958, ¶ 1 (claim of nonjurisdictional sentencing errors); Webber v. Kelly, 120 Ohio St.3d 440, 2008-Ohio-6695, 900 N.E.2d 175, ¶ 8 (claim challenging sufficiency of the evidence); Keith v. Bobby, 117 Ohio St.3d 470, 2008-Ohio-1443, 884 N.E.2d 1067, ¶ 15 (claims of fraud upon the court and prosecutorial misconduct).

Robert Harsh, pro se.

Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp, and McGee Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2012 Ohio 2368, 132 Ohio St. 3d 198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-harsh-v-sheets-ohio-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack