2002 OHIO 5369 - Harris v. Bagley

[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at

97 Ohio St.3d 98

.]




              HARRIS, APPELLANT, v. BAGLEY, WARDEN, APPELLEE.
                     [Cite as Harris v. Bagley,

2002-Ohio-5369

.]
Habeas corpus sought to compel prison warden to immediately release relator
        from prison—Dismissal of petition affirmed.
 (No. 2002-0928—Submitted September 25, 2002—Decided October 23, 2002.)
     APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Richland County, No. 02-CA-29.
                                  __________________
        Per Curiam.
        {¶1} In September 2000, appellant, Matthew Harris, was convicted of one
count of rape and was sentenced to nine years in prison. In April 2002, Harris filed
a petition in the Court of Appeals for Richland County for a writ of habeas corpus
to compel his immediate release from prison. Harris claimed that his conviction
and sentence were void because no proper criminal complaint had ever been filed
against him before he was indicted. The court of appeals dismissed the petition
because a writ of habeas corpus “is not available to challenge the validity or
sufficiency of an indictment.”
        {¶2} In his appeal as of right, Harris contends that the court of appeals erred
in dismissing his petition. We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
        {¶3} “Any defect caused by the alleged failure to file criminal complaints
or the claimed impropriety of the municipal court’s assumption of jurisdiction over
the rape charges is not cognizable in habeas corpus.” Taylor v. Mitchell (2000),

88 Ohio St.3d 453, 454

727 N.E.2d 905

. Harris was convicted and sentenced upon
an indictment, and his trial court had the requisite jurisdiction to try, convict, and
sentence him on the charged offense. State ex rel. Jackson v. Brigano (2000),

88 Ohio St.3d 180, 181

724 N.E.2d 424

; see, also, Orr v. Mack (1998),

83 Ohio St.3d 429, 430

700 N.E.2d 590

.
                                 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




        {¶4} Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of
appeals.1
                                                                          Judgment affirmed.
        MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
                                   __________________
        Matthew Harris, pro se.
        Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Mark J. Zemba, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
                                   __________________




1. Our judgment renders moot Harris’s motion to strike portions of Bagley’s brief.




                                                2