Wilson v. Rogers

Ohio Supreme Court

Wilson v. Rogers

1993 Ohio 136, 68 Ohio St. 3d 130

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 29, 1993

Docket1993-0835

StatusPublished

Cited by19 cases

This text of 1993 Ohio 136 (Wilson v. Rogers) 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

Wilson v. Rogers, 1993 Ohio 136, 68 Ohio St. 3d 130 (Ohio 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The court of appeals correctly dismissed the petition in this case and its judgment is affirmed.

*131 The appellant raises the same three issues on appeal that he raised below. However, that court correctly concluded that habeas corpus was unavailable to review allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, Ellis v. McMackin (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 161, 602 N.E.2d 611; the credibility of evidence used at trial, Saulsbury v. Green (1964), 175 Ohio St. 433, 25 O.O.2d 445, 195 N.E.2d 787; and the sufficiency of an indictment, Chapman v. Jago (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 51, 2 O.O.3d 167, 356 N.E.2d 721.

On appeal, appellant also argues that since eleven of the twenty indictments were dismissed by the trial court, all twenty indictments should be dismissed. Appellant contends that when the trial court dismissed the indictments, all indictments should have been dismissed under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, arguing that double jeopardy applies to the remaining counts against him. However, “[t]he Double Jeopardy Clauses contained in the Ohio and the United States Constitutions protect an accused from multiple prosecutions and multiple punishments for the same offense.” (Emphasis added.) Shearman v. Van Camp (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 468, 469, 597 N.E.2d 88, 92, citing State v. Thomas (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 254, 258-260, 15 O.O.3d 262, 265, 400 N.E.2d 897, 902. The counts on which the appellant was convicted were separate offenses from the counts that were dismissed. Therefore, double jeopardy would not apply. Even if it did apply, double jeopardy is not a ground for post-conviction relief in habeas corpus. Neal v. Maxwell (1963), 175 Ohio St. 201, 202, 24 O.O.2d 281, 282, 192 N.E.2d 782, 783.

None of appellant’s arguments raises a jurisdictional claim. When the petitioner does not attack the jurisdiction of the court, habeas corpus will be denied. R.C. 2725.05; Stahl v. Shoemaker (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 351, 4 O.O.3d 485, 364 N.E.2d 286.

Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

The court of appeals correctly dismissed the petition in this case and its judgment is affirmed.

*131 The appellant raises the same three issues on appeal that he raised below. However, that court correctly concluded that habeas corpus was unavailable to review allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, Ellis v. McMackin (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 161, 602 N.E.2d 611; the credibility of evidence used at trial, Saulsbury v. Green (1964), 175 Ohio St. 433, 25 O.O.2d 445, 195 N.E.2d 787; and the sufficiency of an indictment, Chapman v. Jago (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 51, 2 O.O.3d 167, 356 N.E.2d 721.

On appeal, appellant also argues that since eleven of the twenty indictments were dismissed by the trial court, all twenty indictments should be dismissed. Appellant contends that when the trial court dismissed the indictments, all indictments should have been dismissed under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, arguing that double jeopardy applies to the remaining counts against him. However, “[t]he Double Jeopardy Clauses contained in the Ohio and the United States Constitutions protect an accused from multiple prosecutions and multiple punishments for the same offense.” (Emphasis added.) Shearman v. Van Camp (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 468, 469, 597 N.E.2d 88, 92, citing State v. Thomas (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 254, 258-260, 15 O.O.3d 262, 265, 400 N.E.2d 897, 902. The counts on which the appellant was convicted were separate offenses from the counts that were dismissed. Therefore, double jeopardy would not apply. Even if it did apply, double jeopardy is not a ground for post-conviction relief in habeas corpus. Neal v. Maxwell (1963), 175 Ohio St. 201, 202, 24 O.O.2d 281, 282, 192 N.E.2d 782, 783.

None of appellant’s arguments raises a jurisdictional claim. When the petitioner does not attack the jurisdiction of the court, habeas corpus will be denied. R.C. 2725.05; Stahl v. Shoemaker (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 351, 4 O.O.3d 485, 364 N.E.2d 286.

Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1993 Ohio 136, 68 Ohio St. 3d 130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-rogers-ohio-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack