In re Coleman - 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 In re Coleman, 95 Ohio St.3d 284, 2002-Ohio-1804, 2002-Ohio-1804.]

IN RE COLEMAN.
[Cite as In re Coleman, 95 Ohio St.3d 284, 2002-Ohio-1804.]
Habeas corpus -- Relief denied when adequate remedy existed on direct appeal
-- Claim not raised in direct appeal -- Petition denied.
(No. 2002-0614 -- Submitted April 17, 2002 -- Decided April 19, 2002.)
IN HABEAS CORPUS.
__________________

Per Curiam.
{¶1} Petitioner, Alton Coleman, is scheduled to be executed on April 26,
2002, for the aggravated murder of Marlene Walters. He was convicted of this offense
in 1985. We affirmed his conviction and death sentence in State v. Coleman (1988), 37
Ohio St.3d 286, 525 N.E.2d 792. Coleman has also completed the state postconviction
review process. See State v. Coleman (Mar. 17, 1993), Hamilton App. No. C-900811,
1993 WL 74756, jurisdictional motion overruled (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 1450, 619
N.E.2d 419. In State v. Coleman (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 1407, 637 N.E.2d 5, we
affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals rejecting Coleman's motion to reinstate
his direct appeal. Subsequently, the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio denied Coleman federal habeas corpus relief. The United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed that judgment. Coleman v. Mitchell (C.A.6,
2001), 244 F.3d 533, certiorari denied (2001), __ U.S. __, 122 S.Ct. 405, 151 L.Ed.2d
307.
{¶2} Coleman has now filed a petition in habeas corpus, invoking the original
jurisdiction of this court under Section 2(B)(1)(c), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution.
Accompanying his petition is a motion for an alternative writ of habeas corpus,
requesting a stay of execution.

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITING
{¶3} According to the petition, the state improperly removed 9 of 12 black
prospective jurors by means of peremptory challenges at Coleman's trial in 1985.
Coleman objected, but the prosecutor declined to explain why he had challenged the
jurors in question, and the trial court did not require the prosecutor to offer any
explanation. Citing Batson v. Kentucky (1986), 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90
L.Ed.2d 69, Coleman contends that we should determine whether there was purposeful
discrimination in the jury selection.
{¶4} Coleman's petition is insufficient on its face to warrant habeas relief.
"[H]abeas corpus, like other extraordinary writ actions, is not available when there is an
adequate remedy at law." Gaskins v. Shiplevy (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 380, 383, 667
N.E.2d 1194. See, also, State ex rel. Fryerson v. Tate (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 481, 485,
705 N.E.2d 353; State ex rel. Pirman v. Money (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 591, 593, 635
N.E.2d 26. Coleman had a fully adequate remedy at law: he could have raised this
issue on direct appeal. He knew that the claim existed, for he had raised it in the trial
court. Moreover, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Batson v.
Kentucky on April 30, 1986, over seven months before the Court of Appeals for the
First Appellate District issued its decision affirming his conviction.
{¶5} Yet, as Coleman concedes, he did not raise this claim on direct appeal.
A litigant may not use habeas corpus as a substitute for appeal. See, e.g., Ex parte
Womack (1960), 171 Ohio St. 392, 14 O.O.2d 150, 171 N.E.2d 514; In re Piazza
(1966), 7 Ohio St.2d 102, 36 O.O.2d 84, 218 N.E.2d 459; Bellman v. Jago (1988), 38
Ohio St.3d 55, 526 N.E.2d 308; Ellis v. McMackin (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 161, 602
N.E.2d 611.
{¶6} Because Coleman had an adequate remedy at law by way of direct
appeal, his claim is not cognizable in habeas corpus. Accordingly, Coleman's petition
must be denied. Moreover, since Coleman's claim is at odds with settled habeas law, it
merits neither a stay of execution nor an alternative writ. We therefore deny the motion
for an alternative writ.
2

January Term, 2002

SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITING
Writ denied;
motion denied.

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

David C. Stebbins and Dale A. Baich, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
for petitioner.
__________________
3