Case Title: State ex rel. Richard v. Seidner

Citation: 1997-Ohio-230

Docket Number: 19961245

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1997-04-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
The State ex rel. Richard, Appellant, v. Seidner, Warden, Appellee. 
1 
[Cite as State ex rel. Richard v. Seidner (1997),      Ohio St.3d       .) 
2 
Civil procedure -- Motion for relief from judgment -- Court of appeals does 
3 
not abuse its discretion in denying a Civ.R. 60(B) motion without 
4 
conducting an evidentiary hearing, when -- Habeas corpus not 
5 
available to challenge either the validity or the sufficiency of an 
6 
indictment. 
7 
 
(No. 96-1245 -- Submitted February 18, 1997 -- Decided April 2, 1997.) 
8 
 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lorain County, No. 95CA006193. 
9 
 
In July 1995, appellant, Donald L. Richard, Sr., an inmate at Lorain 
10 
Correctional Institution in the custody of appellee, Warden Larry Seidner, filed a 
11 
petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of Appeals for Lorain County.    
12 
Richard claimed entitlement to habeas corpus relief because the trial court lacked 
13 
jurisdiction to amend his indictment charge of aggravated murder to murder, and 
14 
to conduct a bench trial on his charge of having a weapon while under disability 
15 
without strictly complying with the jury trial waiver requirements of R.C. 2945.05.  
16 
In October 1995, the court of appeals dismissed the petition, and this court 
17 
subsequently affirmed the dismissal.  State ex rel. Richard v. Seidner (1996), 74 
18 
Ohio St.3d 634, 660 N.E.2d 1175. 
19 
 
2
 
Richard filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from the court of appeals’ 
1 
judgment dismissing his habeas corpus petition.  Richard asserted that he could 
2 
not have been convicted of the lesser-included offense of murder without an 
3 
appropriate jury instruction on the lesser offense.  In December 1995, the court of 
4 
appeals denied Richard’s motion, and we later affirmed the judgment.  State ex rel. 
5 
Richard v. Seidner (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 149, 666 N.E.2d 1134. 
6 
 
In February 1996, Richard filed a second motion for relief from the court of 
7 
appeals’ prior judgment dismissing his habeas corpus petition.  Richard contended 
8 
that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict and sentence him because the 
9 
indictment did not allege that he committed the charged offense of aggravated 
10 
murder within the jurisdiction of the trial court, the Cuyahoga County Court of 
11 
Common Pleas.  In May 1996, the court of appeals denied Richard’s motion.     
12 
 
The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. 
13 
____________________ 
14 
 
Donald L. Richard, Sr., pro se. 
15 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Charles L. Wille, Assistant 
16 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
17 
____________________ 
18 
 
3
 
Per Curiam.  Richard asserts in his sole proposition of law that the court of 
1 
appeals abused its discretion in denying his second motion for relief from the 
2 
judgment dismissing his habeas corpus petition without conducting an evidentiary 
3 
hearing.  But an evidentiary hearing is not required where the motion and attached 
4 
evidentiary material do not contain allegations of operative facts which would 
5 
warrant Civ.R. 60(B) relief.  Richard, 76 Ohio St.3d at 151, 666 N.E.2d at 1136, 
6 
citing S. Ohio Coal Co. v. Kidney (1995), 100 Ohio App.3d 661, 667, 654 N.E.2d 
7 
1017, 1021. 
8 
 
Richard’s motion and attached evidentiary material did not allege operative 
9 
facts entitling him to Civ.R. 60(B) relief.  As we recently held in a separate case 
10 
involving Richard, his claim challenging the validity or sufficiency of the 
11 
indictment is not cognizable in habeas corpus.  State ex rel. Richard v. Seidner 
12 
(1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 68, 69, 671 N.E.2d 28 (“*** Richard’s claim challenges the 
13 
validity or sufficiency of his indictment, is nonjurisdictional in nature, and should 
14 
have been raised on appeal of his criminal conviction rather than in habeas 
15 
corpus.”); see, also, State ex rel. Durkin v. Ungaro (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 191, 
16 
192, 529 N.E.2d 1268, 1269 (Civ.R. 60[B] motion for relief from judgment cannot 
17 
be used as a substitute for a timely appeal.).  In addition, the indictment attached to 
18 
 
4
his second motion for relief from judgment specifically alleged that the charged 
1 
offense occurred in Cuyahoga County.       
2 
 
Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals did not abuse its discretion in 
3 
denying Richard’s second motion for relief from judgment without holding an 
4 
evidentiary hearing.  The court of appeals properly determined that Richard failed 
5 
to provide the court with any reasons justifying relief from its previous judgment 
6 
dismissing his habeas corpus petition.  Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the 
7 
court of appeals.       
8 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
9 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
10 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
11 
 
12