State ex rel. Simpson v. Lazaroff

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Simpson v. Lazaroff

1996 Ohio 201, 75 Ohio St. 3d 571

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 5, 1996

Docket1996-0123

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1996 Ohio 201 (State ex rel. Simpson v. Lazaroff) 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. Simpson v. Lazaroff, 1996 Ohio 201, 75 Ohio St. 3d 571 (Ohio 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 75 Ohio St.3d 571.]

THE STATE EX REL. SIMPSON, APPELLANT, v. LAZAROFF, WARDEN, APPELLEE. [Cite as State ex rel. Simpson v. Lazaroff, 1996-Ohio-201.] Habeas corpus not available to challenge the sufficiency of an indictment. (No. 96-123— Submitted April 15, 1996—Decided June 5, 1996.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Warren County, No. CA95-10-103. __________________ {¶ 1} Appellant, Marcus Simpson, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of Appeals for Warren County, alleging that he was being unlawfully restrained of his liberty. The court of appeals granted appellee’s motion to dismiss and dismissed Simpson’s petition. {¶ 2} The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. __________________ Marcus Simpson, pro se. Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Stuart A. Cole, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 3} Simpson asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his habeas corpus petition. Simpson claims that the sentencing court lacked jurisdiction over him because the indictment on which he was charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced referred to him as “Mark Simpson” when his true name was “Marcus Simpson.” As the court of appeals correctly concluded, Simpson merely challenged the sufficiency of the indictment rather than the jurisdiction of the sentencing court. See R.C. 2941.03(C); Crim.R. 7(B); see, also, Lasure v. State (1869), 19 Ohio St. 43, 50 (An indictment serves as an accusation of a person for a crime rather than an accusation of a particular name.). SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶ 4} Habeas corpus is not available to challenge either the validity or sufficiency of an indictment. Luna v. Russell (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 561, 562, 639 N.E.2d 1168, 1169. Simpson possessed an adequate remedy by direct appeal to raise his contentions. Luna, 70 Ohio St.3d at 562, 639 N.E.2d at 1169. {¶ 5} Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. Judgment affirmed. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 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 75 Ohio St.3d 571.]

THE STATE EX REL. SIMPSON, APPELLANT, v. LAZAROFF, WARDEN, APPELLEE. [Cite as State ex rel. Simpson v. Lazaroff, 1996-Ohio-201.] Habeas corpus not available to challenge the sufficiency of an indictment. (No. 96-123— Submitted April 15, 1996—Decided June 5, 1996.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Warren County, No. CA95-10-103. __________________ {¶ 1} Appellant, Marcus Simpson, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of Appeals for Warren County, alleging that he was being unlawfully restrained of his liberty. The court of appeals granted appellee’s motion to dismiss and dismissed Simpson’s petition. {¶ 2} The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. __________________ Marcus Simpson, pro se. Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Stuart A. Cole, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 3} Simpson asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his habeas corpus petition. Simpson claims that the sentencing court lacked jurisdiction over him because the indictment on which he was charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced referred to him as “Mark Simpson” when his true name was “Marcus Simpson.” As the court of appeals correctly concluded, Simpson merely challenged the sufficiency of the indictment rather than the jurisdiction of the sentencing court. See R.C. 2941.03(C); Crim.R. 7(B); see, also, Lasure v. State (1869), 19 Ohio St. 43, 50 (An indictment serves as an accusation of a person for a crime rather than an accusation of a particular name.). SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶ 4} Habeas corpus is not available to challenge either the validity or sufficiency of an indictment. Luna v. Russell (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 561, 562, 639 N.E.2d 1168, 1169. Simpson possessed an adequate remedy by direct appeal to raise his contentions. Luna, 70 Ohio St.3d at 562, 639 N.E.2d at 1169. {¶ 5} Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. Judgment affirmed. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and STRATTON, JJ., concur. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1996 Ohio 201, 75 Ohio St. 3d 571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-simpson-v-lazaroff-ohio-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack