Ramirez v. Wilson, (Ohio 2006)

Ohio Supreme Court

Status: 2006-Ohio-677

Docket Number: 05 CA 62

Parts: Wise

Linked as:

Summary

Whether habeas corpus may be used to challenge allegedly defective indictment.

Summary

Whether habeas corpus may be used to challenge allegedly defective indictment.

Text

[Cite as Ramirez v. Wilson, 2006-Ohio-677.]

COURT OF APPEALS RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

JESUS RAMIREZ JUDGES:

Hon. John W. Wise, P. J.

Petitioner-Appellant Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J.

Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J. -vs-

Case No. 05 CA 62 JULIUS WILSON, WARDEN

Respondent-Appel ee O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 05 CV 204H

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: February 15, 2006

APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellant For Defendant-Appel ee

JESUS RAMIREZ PRO SE #413-218 THELMA THOMAS PRICE RICHLAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL Post Office Box 8107 150 East Gay Street 1001 Olivesburg Road 16th Floor Mansfield, Ohio 44901-8107 Columbus, Ohio

- 1 -

Richland County, Case No. 05 CA 62 2

Wise, P. J.

Appellant Jesus Ramirez appeals the decision of the Richland County Court of Common Pleas challenging the trial court's dismissal of his writ of habeas corpus. The following facts give rise to this appeal.

In January 2001, the Franklin County Grand Jury indicted appel ant for possession of marijuana in an amount in excess of twenty thousand grams. This matter proceeded to a jury trial and following deliberations, the jury found appel ant guilty as charged in the indictment. On June 22, 2001, the trial court sentenced appellant to eight years in prison.

On February 24, 2005, appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, with the trial court, alleging the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas lacked jurisdiction to sentence him to an eight-year prison term. Appellant based his claim upon an allegedly invalid complaint filed against him in the Franklin County Municipal Court. Appel ee moved to dismiss the petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), or, in the alternative, for lack of merit.

On June 3, 2005, the trial court granted appel ee's motion to dismiss finding appellant failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal and sets forth the fol owing assignment of error for our consideration:

"I. THE RICHLAND COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND DENIED THE PETITIONER/APPELLANT EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAWS, AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, OHIO

- 2 -

Richland County, Case No. 05 CA 62 3

CONSTITUTION BILL OF RIGHTS: ARTICLE 1, § 2, AND 16, WHEN THE HEARING JUDGE JAMES D. HENSON, DISMISSED THE PETITIONER'S/APPELLANT'S STATE HABEAS CORPUS UPON FINDINGS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD." I

In his sole assignment of error, appellant maintains the trial court abused its discretion when it dismissed his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We disagree.

In support of this assignment of error, appellant contends he is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus because the complaint filed in the Franklin County Municipal Court, by a police officer, was not signed before a notary public. Therefore, appel ant concludes the municipal court did not properly obtain jurisdiction over him and that when his case was bound over to the common pleas court, the municipal court was unable to transfer jurisdiction to the common pleas court. As such, the common pleas court lacked jurisdiction to convict him of the charge of possession of marijuana.

Appellant attacks the indictment on the basis that neither the municipal court nor the common pleas court properly acquired jurisdiction over him. The Ohio Supreme Court has previously held that extraordinary remedies, such as habeas corpus, are not proper for attacking indictments. See State ex rel. Johnson v. Talikka (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 109, 1994-Ohio-260 and Luna v. Russell (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 561, 1994-Ohio-264. Specifically, in the Luna case, the Court stated that:

"Habeas corpus is not available to challenge either the validity * * * or the sufficiency of an indictment. * * * Luna possessed an adequate remedy by direct appeal to raise these contentions." Id. at 562.

- 3 -

Richland County, Case No. 05 CA 62 4

In the case sub judice, because appellant sought to challenge the validity of the indictment, the trial court properly granted appellee's motion to dismiss.

Appellant's sole assignment of error is overruled.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, Richland County, Ohio, is hereby affirmed.

By: Wise, P. J.

Gwin, J., and Edwards, J., concur.

____________________

____________________

____________________

JUDGES JWW/d

- 4 -

Richland County, Case No. 05 CA 62 5

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

JESUS RAMIREZ :

: Petitioner-Appellant :

: -vs- :

JUDGMENT ENTRY

: JULIUS WILSON, WARDEN :

:

Respondent-Appellee :

Case No. 05 CA 62

For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Richland County, Ohio, is affirmed.

Costs assessed to Appellant.

____________________

____________________

____________________

JUDGES

- 5 -