Case Title: State ex rel. Yauger v. Seidner

Citation: 1996-Ohio-348

Docket Number: 19961009

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1996-11-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
The State ex rel. Yauger, Appellant, v. Seidner, Warden, Appellee.  (Two cases.) 
The State ex rel. Kimbro, Appellant, v. Seidner, Warden, Appellee. 
The State ex rel. McClutchen, Appellant, v. Seidner, Warden, Appellee. 
The State ex rel. White, Appellant, v. Seidner, Warden, Appellee. 
The State ex rel. Garcia, Appellant, v. Seidner, Warden, Appellee. 
The State ex rel. Dix, Appellant, v. Seidner, Warden, Appellee. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Yauger v. Seidner (1996),      Ohio St.3d     .] 
Habeas corpus not available to challenge either the validity or the 
sufficiency of an indictment. 
 
(Nos. 96-1009, 96-1010, 96-1263, 96-1273, 96-1300, 96-1311 and 96-1351 
-- Submitted September 10, 1996 -- Decided November 6, 1996.) 
 
Appeals from the Court of Appeals for Lorain County, Nos. 96CA006362, 
96CA006363, 96CA006375, 96CA006381, 96CA006385, 96CA006386 and 
96CA006370. 
 
These are appeals from dismissals of habeas corpus petitions filed in the 
Court of Appeals for Lorain County by appellants, inmates incarcerated in the 
Lorain Correctional Institution under the custody of appellee, Warden Larry 
Seidner.  In these seven cases, appellants filed similar form petitions for a writ of 
 
2
habeas corpus in the court of appeals.  They alleged that their indictments 
contained no allegation that the charged offenses were committed within the 
territorial jurisdiction of their sentencing courts.  The court of appeals granted 
appellee’s motions and dismissed the petitions.   
 
These causes are now before this court upon appeals as of right. 
____________________ 
 
Ricky Yauger, pro se. 
 
Nathaniel Kimbro, pro se. 
 
Phillip McClutchen, pro se. 
 
David J. White, pro se. 
 
Modesto Garcia, pro se. 
 
Richard Dix, Jr., pro se. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, Charles L. Wille, Karl R. Wetzel, 
Stuart A. Cole and Donald Gary Keyser, Assistant Attorneys General, for 
appellee. 
____________________    
 
Per Curiam.  Appellants assert in their propositions of law that the court of 
appeals erred in dismissing their habeas corpus petitions.  Appellants claim that 
 
3
their indictments did not comply with R.C. 2941.03(D) because none of the 
charges alleged that the offenses were committed within the territorial 
jurisdictions of their sentencing courts.  However, as we recently held in similar 
appeals instituted by inmates at the same prison, these claims merely attack the 
validity or sufficiency of their indictments and are cognizable on direct appeal 
rather than via habeas corpus.  State ex rel. Wilcox v. Seidner (1996), 76 Ohio 
St.3d 412, 414-415, 667 N.E.2d 1220, 1222.  The court of appeals properly 
dismissed appellants’ petitions.   
 
Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the court of appeals. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgments affirmed. 
 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
STRATTON, JJ., concur.