Case ID: ohio-st-3d_132/html/0198-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The State ex rel. Harsh, Appellant, v. Sheets, Warden, Appellee.
    [Cite as State ex rel. Harsh v. Sheets, 132 Ohio St.3d 198, 2012-Ohio-2368.]
    (No. 2012-0093
    Submitted May 23, 2012
    Decided May 31, 2012.)
   Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of appellant, Robert Harsh, for a writ of habeas corpus. Harsh previously unsuccessfully raised many of his same claims in his direct appeal, State v. Harsh, Butler App. No. CA2007-03-083, so res judicata bars him from using habeas corpus to obtain a successive appellate review of the same claims. See Roberts v. Knab, 131 Ohio St.3d 60, 2012-Ohio-56, 960 N.E.2d 457, ¶ 1.

{¶ 2} Moreover, because Harsh either raised or could have raised his claims in three previous state habeas corpus cases, res judicata also bars him from filing a successive habeas corpus petition. Nickelson v. Knab, 131 Ohio St.3d 199, 2012-Ohio-579, 963 N.E.2d 154, ¶ 1. Like the court of appeals in this case, we similarly dismissed a successive habeas corpus petition filed by Harsh in 2011. Harsh v. Knab, 128 Ohio St.3d 1498, 2011-Ohio-2420, 947 N.E.2d 681.

{¶ 3} Finally, Harsh’s claims are not cognizable in habeas corpus, and he had an adequate remedy by way of appeal to raise his claims. See Smith v. Smith, 123 Ohio St.3d 145, 2009-Ohio-4691, 914 N.E.2d 1036, ¶ 1 (claim that jury-verdict forms did not list essential elements of criminal offense); Haynes v. Voorhies, 110 Ohio St.3d 243, 2006-Ohio-4355, 852 N.E.2d 1198, ¶ 5 (claim challenging validity of amendment to an indictment); State ex rel. Austin v. Knab, 127 Ohio St.3d 118, 2010-Ohio-4982, 936 N.E.2d 958, ¶ 1 (claim of nonjurisdictional sentencing errors); Webber v. Kelly, 120 Ohio St.3d 440, 2008-Ohio-6695, 900 N.E.2d 175, ¶ 8 (claim challenging sufficiency of the evidence); Keith v. Bobby, 117 Ohio St.3d 470, 2008-Ohio-1443, 884 N.E.2d 1067, ¶ 15 (claims of fraud upon the court and prosecutorial misconduct).

Robert Harsh, pro se.

Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp, and McGee Brown, JJ., concur.