Summary
In Burch v. Morris (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 18, 19, 25 OBR 15, 16, 494 N.E.2d 1137, 1138, we stated that when an issue has been raised on direct appeal or through postconviction proceedings, it "may not later be relitigated by way of habeas corpus."
Summary of this case from Hudlin v. AlexanderOpinion
No. 85-1789
Decided July 9, 1986.
Habeas corpus — Nonjurisdictional errors alleged — Issue previously raised on direct appeal — Denial of writ affirmed.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Summit County.
Appellants, Daniel D. Burch and James A. Williams, were convicted on May 3, 1978 of a variety of drug-related offenses in the Court of Common Pleas of Summit County. On direct appeal their convictions were affirmed in part and reversed in part.
In June 1983, appellants jointly filed a petition for postconviction relief in the court of common pleas alleging their convictions on certain charges were obtained solely on the basis of uncorroborated testimony of a co-conspirator in violation of R.C. 2923.03(D). See, generally, State v. Myers (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 74 [7 O.O.3d 150], and State v. Pearson (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 291 [16 O.O.3d 332]. The trial court dismissed the petition and, on appeal, its judgment was affirmed.
Appellants then filed the within original action in the court of appeals seeking the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to compel their release from custody, wherein they continued to allege that their convictions were obtained, in part, by virtue of uncorroborated testimony by a co-conspirator. Upon a motion by appellee, Terry Morris, the Superintendent of the Orient Correctional Institute, the court of appeals dismissed appellants' petition.
The cause is now before this court on an appeal as of right.
David D. Burch and James A. Williams, pro se. Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., attorney general, and Alexander G. Thomas, for appellees.
As was recognized by this court in In re Burson (1949), 152 Ohio St. 375 [40 O.O. 391], paragraph four of the syllabus:
"Where a person restrained of his liberty is in custody of an officer under process issued by a court or magistrate, or by virtue of a judgment or order of a court of record, and the court or magistrate had jurisdiction to issue the process, render the judgment or make the order, a discharge from custody by the writ of habeas corpus will not be allowed. Such person has an adequate remedy at law by way of review on appeal." Accord Stahl v. Shoemaker (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 351, 353 [4 O.O.3d 485].
The errors raised by appellants in their petition for a writ of habeas corpus are not jurisdictional in nature. Instead, the focus of the petition centers upon alleged evidentiary errors committed in the trial court. Such errors, however, do not form the basis for an action in habeas corpus, for as the court stated over a century ago in Ex parte Van Hagan (1874), 25 Ohio St. 426, paragraph two of the syllabus, " [h]abeas corpus is not the proper mode of redress, where the relator has been convicted of a criminal offense, and sentenced to imprisonment therefor by a court of competent jurisdiction; if errors or irregularities have occurred in the proceedings or sentence, a writ of error is the proper remedy."
Moreover, in Anderson v. Maxwell (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 188 [39 O.O.2d 196], and Freeman v. Maxwell (1965), 4 Ohio St.2d 4 [33 O.O.2d 2], we reasoned that once a claimed irregularity at trial is challenged on direct appeal or through a proceeding in postconviction relief pursuant to R.C. 2953.21 et seq., the issue may not later be relitigated by way of habeas corpus.
In view of the foregoing authority, the court of appeals possessed alternate grounds for dismissal of the petition, since the issue sought to be raised in the habeas corpus action was not jurisdictional in nature and, in addition, the issue had previously been raised on direct appeal, as well as through a petition for postconviction relief.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the court of appeals is hereby affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, C. BROWN, DOUGLAS and WRIGHT, JJ., concur.