Summary
explaining that the issue of whether the petitioner made an intelligent, knowing, and voluntary guilty plea is a matter to be resolved through a motion to withdraw the guilty plea, a direct appeal, or postconviction proceedings, rather than in habeas corpus
Summary of this case from McReynolds v. Warden of BE.C.I.Opinion
No. 87-971
Decided February 10, 1988.
Habeas corpus — Nonjurisdictional errors afford no basis for issuing writ.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lucas County.
Appellant, Mark L. Pollock, was indicted by the Lucas County Grand Jury on a charge of aggravated burglary and was appointed counsel by the trial court. Appellant entered a plea of not guilty to the charge. Appellant alleges that on February 25, 1981, his counsel filed a motion for evaluation of competency to stand trial. This motion was later withdrawn. Appellant further alleges that on March 23, 1981, counsel filed a motion for conditional probation due to appellant's thirteen-year history of serious drug abuse and addiction to opiates.
However, appellant states that on March 24, 1981, he withdrew the plea of not guilty and pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.12. The plea was accepted and, after a referral for a presentence report, appellant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five to fifteen years.
On April 3, 1987, appellant filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of Appeals for Lucas County, naming the Superintendent of the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility as respondent. In a decision and journal entry filed April 23, 1987, the court of appeals dismissed the petition. The court noted that appellant had not raised the issue of jurisdiction of the sentencing court and that he also had post-conviction remedies under R.C. 2953.21 et seq. available to him. Therefore, the court held that the action was not properly before it.
The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.
Mark L. Pollock, pro se. Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., attorney general, and Alexander G. Thomas, for appellee.
R.C. 2725.05 provides, in pertinent part, that:
"If it appears that a person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer under process issued by a court or magistrate, or by virtue of the judgment or order of a court of record, and that the court or magistrate had jurisdiction to issue the process, render the judgment, or make the order, the writ of habeas corpus shall not be allowed. * * *"
Appellant maintains that he is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus inasmuch as no other legal remedy is available to him. He asserts that he was incompetent at the time he withdrew his not guilty plea and pleaded guilty. Appellant further argues that the issues of competency and drug dependency are res judicata, since they were raised in the trial court, and therefore no post-conviction remedies are available to him.
Clearly, whether appellant made a guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily is a matter to be resolved at post-conviction proceedings or on direct appeal. Further, appellant is mistaken when he asserts that because he might have been incompetent at the time he made the plea, the trial court had no jurisdiction over him and therefore improperly exercised its jurisdiction.
This court has held that:
"Habeas corpus is not the proper mode of redress where the petitioner has been convicted of a criminal offense and sentenced to imprisonment therefor by a court of competent jurisdiction. The availability of the post conviction remedies provided by R.C. 2953.21 to 2953.24, inclusive, is ground for denial of a writ of habeas corpus * * *." Padavick v. Cleveland Heights (1973), 34 Ohio St.2d 15, 16, 63 O.O. 2d 40, 41, 295 N.E.2d 193, 194.
Further, while a party detained pursuant to a judgment of a court is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus if that court lacked jurisdiction to enter the judgment, nonjurisdictional errors afford no basis for issuing the writ. Habeas corpus is not a substitute for appeal. Stahl v. Shoemaker (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 351, 354, 4 O.O. 3d 485, 487-488, 364 N.E.2d 286, 288.
Appellant has failed to satisfy the statutory requirements for issuing a writ of habeas corpus and the court of appeals properly dismissed his petition. Accordingly, the decision of the court of appeals must be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT and H. BROWN, JJ., concur.