VanBuskirk v. Wingard

Decided January 7, 1998

Ohio Supreme Court · decided 1998-01-07

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“a grand jury foreperson's failure to sign an indictment does not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction or otherwise entitle a criminal defendant convicted and sentenced on the indictment to a writ of habeas corpus.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including State v. Coleman

Relies on State ex rel. Beaucamp v. Lazaroff · State ex rel. Justice v. McMackin

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1998-01-07

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently October 2024

23 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1We affirm the judgments of the court of appeals dismissing appellants’ petitions. Appellants’ claims merely attacked the validity and sufficiency of their indictments. Consequently, their claims should have been raised by direct appeal rather than habeas corpus. State ex rel. Beaucamp v. Lazaroff (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 237, 238, 673 N.E.2d 1273, 1274. Further, contrary to appellants’ assertions, a grand jury foreperson’s failure to sign an indictment does not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction or otherwise entitle a criminal defendant convicted and sentenced on the indictment to a writ of habeas corpus. State ex rel. Justice v. McMackin (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 72, 73, 558 N.E.2d 1183.

¶2Judgments affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.