Case Title: Carter v. May

Citation: 2020-Ohio-4522

Docket Number: 2020-0328

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2020-09-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Carter v. May, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-4522.] 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 
advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested to 
promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 
South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 
formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 
the opinion is published. 
 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2020-OHIO-4522 
CARTER, APPELLANT, v. MAY,1 WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Carter v. May, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-4522.] 
Habeas corpus—Inmate failed to state claim cognizable in habeas—Court of 
appeals’ dismissal of petition affirmed. 
(No. 2020-0328—Submitted June 16, 2020—Decided September 24, 2020.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lucas County, 
No. L-19-1279. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, Anthony D. Carter, appeals from the court of appeals’ 
judgment dismissing his habeas corpus petition.  We affirm. 
{¶ 2} Carter was convicted of multiple felony drug-related offenses and 
sentenced in 2018 to an aggregate 32-year prison term.  His convictions and 
                                                 
1. Carter asserted his claim against Sean Bowerman, who was the warden of the Toledo Correctional 
Institution when the petition was filed.  The current warden, Harold May, is automatically 
substituted as a party to this action under S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.06(B). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
2
sentences were affirmed on direct appeal.  State v. Carter, 4th Dist. Pickaway No. 
18CA1, 2018-Ohio-4503.  In 2019, Carter filed a petition for a writ of habeas 
corpus in the Sixth District Court of Appeals against the warden of the Toledo 
Correctional Institution, alleging that his convictions were not supported by 
sufficient evidence.  The Sixth District concluded that Carter had failed to state a 
cognizable habeas claim and dismissed the petition.  Carter has appealed to this 
court as of right. 
{¶ 3} A writ of habeas corpus “is warranted in certain extraordinary 
circumstances ‘where there is an unlawful restraint of a person’s liberty and there 
is no adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.’ ”  Johnson v. Timmerman-
Cooper, 93 Ohio St.3d 614, 616, 757 N.E.2d 1153 (2001), quoting Peagan v. 
Crawmer, 76 Ohio St.3d 97, 99, 666 N.E.2d 1091 (1996).  Habeas corpus ordinarily 
lies only to challenge the sentencing court’s jurisdiction.  State ex rel. Quillen v. 
Wainwright, 152 Ohio St.3d 566, 2018-Ohio-922, 99 N.E.3d 360, ¶ 6.  It is well-
settled that a writ of habeas corpus is not available to challenge the sufficiency of 
the evidence, because such a claim may be raised on appeal.  Caudill v. Brigano, 
100 Ohio St.3d 37, 2003-Ohio-4777, 795 N.E.2d 674, ¶ 3. 
{¶ 4} The Sixth District therefore was correct in determining that Carter’s 
petition fails to state a claim cognizable in habeas corpus. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, 
and STEWART, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Anthony D. Carter, pro se. 
_________________