Larsen v. State - 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

[Cite as Larsen v. State, 92 Ohio St.3d 69, 2001-Ohio-133.]

LARSEN, APPELLANT, v. The STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE.
[Cite as Larsen v. State (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 69.]
Habeas corpus sought to compel relator's release from confinement --
Complaint in habeas corpus dismissed as moot when relator is released
from confinement prior to hearing.
(No. 00-1721 -- Submitted May 16, 2001 -- Decided June 13, 2001.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Noble County, No. 281.
__________________

Per Curiam. In September 1999, appellant, John D. Larsen, was released
on his own recognizance after being charged with forgery. In November 1999, a
grand jury returned an indictment charging Larsen with one count of failure to
appear after being released, in violation of R.C. 2937.99. In February 2000, the
Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas convicted Larsen of failure to appear
and sentenced him to a prison term of one year, crediting him with eighteen days
for time served.

In July 2000, Larsen filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Noble
County for a writ of habeas corpus on the grounds that his indictment was
defective because it failed to state an indictable offense. In August 2000, the
court of appeals dismissed the petition.

In his appeal of right, Larsen claims that the court of appeals erred in
dismissing his petition. For the following reasons, we dismiss this appeal as
moot.

Habeas corpus is generally appropriate in the criminal context only if the
petitioner is entitled to immediate release from prison. Douglas v. Money (1999),
85 Ohio St.3d 348, 349, 708 N.E.2d 697, 698. If a habeas corpus petitioner
seeking release is subsequently released, the petitioner's habeas corpus claim is

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
normally rendered moot. Pewitt v. Lorain Correctional Inst. (1992), 64 Ohio
St.3d 470, 472, 597 N.E.2d 92, 94. Larsen's appeal is moot because his one-year
sentence has expired and he has been released from prison.

Moreover, this is not a claim that is "capable of repetition, yet evading
review." Spencer v. Kemna (1998), 523 U.S. 1, 17, 118 S.Ct. 978, 988, 140
L.Ed.2d 43, 56; State ex rel. Calvary v. Upper Arlington (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d
229, 231, 729 N.E.2d 1182, 1185. In fact, we have frequently reviewed these
issues and have consistently held that claims challenging the validity and
sufficiency of an indictment are not cognizable in habeas corpus. See, e.g.,
Buoscio v. Bagley (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 134, 135, 742 N.E.2d 652, 653; Gunnell
v. Lazaroff (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 76, 76-77, 734 N.E.2d 829, 830.

Based on the foregoing, we dismiss this appeal as moot.
Appeal dismissed.

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

John D. Larsen, pro se.

Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Thelma Thomas Price,
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
__________________
2