Orr v. Mack - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

ORR, APPELLANT, v. MACK, WARDEN, APPELLEE.
[Cite as Orr v. Mack (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.]
Habeas corpus -- Court of appeals properly dismissed petition, when.
(No. 98-859 -- Submitted September 29, 1998 -- Decided October 28, 1998.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Madison County, No. CA98-01-002.

In 1996, the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas convicted
appellant, Roland Orr, of aggravated trafficking in drugs and sentenced him to a
prison term of seven to twenty-five years. In 1998, Orr filed a petition in the
Court of Appeals for Madison County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel
appellee, Lawrence Mack, his prison warden, to immediately release him. Orr
claimed that his criminal complaint and indictment were void. The court of
appeals granted appellee's Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion and dismissed the petition for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right.
__________________

Roland Orr, pro se.
__________________

Per Curiam. Orr asserts that the court of appeals erred by dismissing his
habeas corpus petition. For the following reasons, however, Orr's assertion lacks
merit.

First, as the court of appeals held, habeas corpus is not available to attack
the validity or sufficiency of the charging instrument. State ex rel. Beaucamp v.
Lazaroff (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 237, 238, 673 N.E.2d 1273, 1274. The manner by
which an accused is charged with a crime is procedural rather than jurisdictional,
and after a conviction for crimes charged in an indictment, the judgment binds the
defendant for the crime for which he was convicted. Id., citing Wells v. Maxwell

(1963), 174 Ohio St. 198, 200, 22 O.O.2d 147, 148, 188 N.E.2d 160, 161, and
State v. Wozniak (1961), 172 Ohio St. 517, 522-523, 18 O.O.2d 58, 61, 178
N.E.2d 800, 804.

Second, Orr had an adequate legal remedy by direct appeal to challenge the
validity or sufficiency of the complaint and indictment. State ex rel. Simpson v.
Lazaroff (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 571, 664 N.E.2d 937.

Finally, Orr did not verify his petition as required by R.C. 2725.04. State ex
rel. Ranzy v. Coyle (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 109, 110, 689 N.E.2d 563, 564.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Judgment affirmed.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.

2