[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at
95 Ohio St.3d 281.]
HOWARD, APPELLANT, v. RANDLE, WARDEN, APPELLEE.
[Cite as Howard v. Randle, 2002-Ohio-2122.]
Habeas corpus sought to compel relator’s immediate release from prison—Court of
appeals’ dismissal of petition affirmed, when.
(No. 2001-2106—Submitted April 10, 2002—Decided May 15, 2002.)
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Ross County, No. 01CA2601.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶1} In April 1978, the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas convicted
appellant, Nebraska Howard, upon his guilty plea, of two counts of kidnapping and
three counts of rape, and sentenced him to an aggregate prison term of twelve to
seventy-five years. The common pleas court found Howard to be a psychopathic
offender, suspended the execution of his sentence, and committed him to the former
Department of Mental Health and Retardation for an indefinite period, “until released
from said institution.”
{¶2} In November 1978, after Howard apparently attempted to escape, the
common pleas court revoked its previous order, terminated the suspension of Howard’s
prison sentence, and ordered the execution of the sentence.
{¶3} In April 2001, Howard filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Ross
County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel his immediate release from prison.
Howard claimed that he was entitled to discharge from confinement because of an
unconstitutional amendment of his indictment, a defective indictment, sentencing
errors, including a violation of the prohibition against ex post facto laws, breach of a
plea agreement, fraud, double jeopardy, and his own incompetence. Appellee,
Chillicothe Correctional Institution Warden Michael Randle, filed a motion to dismiss.
{¶4} In October 2001, the court of appeals granted the warden’s motion and
dismissed the petition.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
{¶5} In his appeal as of right, Howard asserts that the court of appeals erred by
dismissing his habeas corpus petition.
{¶6} Howard’s assertion lacks merit because his claims are not cognizable in
state habeas corpus. See, e.g., State ex rel. Bragg v. Seidner (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 87,
88,
748 N.E.2d 532 (validity or sufficiency of an indictment or an amended
indictment); Brown v. Leonard (1999),
86 Ohio St.3d 593,
716 N.E.2d 183 (sentencing
errors); Majoros v. Collins (1992),
64 Ohio St.3d 442,
596 N.E.2d 1038 (ex post facto
provisions); cf. State ex rel. Seikbert v. Wilkinson (1994),
69 Ohio St.3d 489,
633
N.E.2d 1128 (adequate legal remedy to raise claim of breach of plea agreement
precluded extraordinary relief in mandamus); Douglas v. Money (1999),
85 Ohio St.3d
348,
708 N.E.2d 697 (conspiracy and bias); State ex rel. Tran v. McMackin (1991),
62
Ohio St.3d 165,
580 N.E.2d 782 (fraud and trickery); Thomas v. Huffman (1998),
84
Ohio St.3d 266,
703 N.E.2d 315 (double jeopardy); Krauter v. Maxwell (1965),
3 Ohio
St.2d 142,
32 O.O.2d 141,
209 N.E.2d 571 (mental incompetence of an accused in a
criminal proceeding). Howard had adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law to
raise these claims.
{¶7} 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.
__________________
Nebraska Howard, pro se.
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Diane Mallory, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
__________________
2
