Case Title: Marshall v. Lazaroff

Citation: 1997-Ohio-257

Docket Number: 19961933

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1997-02-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
Marshall, Appellant, v. Lazaroff, Warden, Appellee. 
1 
[Cite as Marshall v. Lazaroff (1997),     Ohio St.3d      .] 
2 
Habeas corpus not available to challenge either the validity or sufficiency 
3 
of an indictment -- Allegations of fraud on part of prosecution 
4 
relating to an indictment are not cognizable in habeas corpus -- 
5 
When petitioner is incarcerated for several crimes, sentencing 
6 
court’s lack of jurisdiction to sentence him on one of the crimes 
7 
does not warrant release in habeas corpus. 
8 
 
(No. 96-1933 -- Submitted January 7, 1997 -- Decided February 19, 1997.) 
9 
 
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Pickaway County, No. 96 CA 21.       
10 
 
In 1993, the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas convicted appellant, 
11 
Joseph Marshall, Jr., of two counts of drug trafficking with accompanying 
12 
specifications.  The common pleas court sentenced Marshall to concurrent terms 
13 
that were to be served consecutively to his sentence in case No. CR287104.   
14 
 
In 1996, Marshall filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of 
15 
Appeals for Pickaway County, alleging that he was being illegally restrained of his 
16 
liberty by appellee, Alan J. Lazaroff, Warden of the Orient Correctional 
17 
Institution.  Marshall claimed that he was entitled to immediate release from 
18 
prison because the prosecuting attorney’s office perpetrated a fraud by producing 
19 
an indictment in his drug trafficking case that was not returned by the Cuyahoga 
20 
 
2
County Grand Jury.  The court of appeals granted Lazaroff’s Civ.R. 12(B)(6) 
1 
motion and dismissed the petition.   
2 
____________________ 
3 
 
Joseph Marshall, Jr., pro se. 
4 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Stephanie Harris, Assistant 
5 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
6 
____________________ 
7 
 
Per Curiam.  Marshall asserts in his propositions of law that the court of 
8 
appeals erred in dismissing his petition and in not holding an evidentiary hearing.  
9 
But the court of appeals properly held that habeas corpus is not available to 
10 
challenge either the validity or sufficiency of an indictment.  State ex rel. Wilcox v. 
11 
Seidner (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 412, 415, 667 N.E.2d 1220, 1222; Luna v. Russell 
12 
(1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 561, 562, 639 N.E.2d 1168, 1169.  Similarly, allegations of 
13 
fraud on the part of the prosecution relating to an indictment are not cognizable in 
14 
habeas corpus.  State ex rel. Justice v. McMackin (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 72, 73, 
15 
558 N.E.2d 1183-1184.  Marshall could have raised these claims on direct appeal 
16 
of his criminal conviction.  State ex rel. Simpson v. Lazaroff (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 
17 
571, 664 N.E.2d 937. 
18 
 
3
 
Furthermore, Marshall attacks the validity only of his drug trafficking 
1 
sentences.  He does not challenge the validity of his sentence in Cuyahoga County 
2 
Common Pleas Court case No. CR287104, which is referenced in the entry 
3 
attached to his petition.  Marshall also did not allege that the sentence in that case 
4 
had expired at the time he sought extraordinary relief in habeas corpus.  Swiger v. 
5 
Seidner (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 685, 687, 660 N.E.2d 1214, 1216 (“Where a 
6 
petitioner is incarcerated for several crimes, the fact that the sentencing court may 
7 
have lacked jurisdiction to sentence him on one of the crimes does not warrant his 
8 
release in habeas corpus.”). 
9 
 
For the foregoing reasons, the court of appeals did not err in granting 
10 
Lazaroff’s Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss the petition without holding an 
11 
evidentiary hearing.  Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
12 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
13 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
14 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
15 
 
16