Case Title: Haynes v. Voorhies

Citation: 2006-Ohio-4355

Docket Number: 20060649

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2006-09-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Haynes v. Voorhies, 110 Ohio St.3d 243, 2006-Ohio-4355.] 
 
 
 
HAYNES, APPELLANT, v. VOORHIES, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Haynes v. Voorhies, 110 Ohio St.3d 243, 2006-Ohio-4355.] 
Appeal from dismissal of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus – Habeas corpus 
is not available to challenge the validity of an amendment to an indictment 
– Judgment affirmed. 
(No. 2006-0649 ─ Submitted July 18, 2006 ─ Decided September 6, 2006.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Scioto County, No. 06CA3054. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing a habeas corpus 
petition. 
{¶ 2} In 2001, appellant, Shannon Haynes, was convicted of kidnapping, 
rape, and murder and was sentenced to prison.  On appeal, that judgment was 
affirmed.  State v. Haynes, Franklin App. No. 01AP-430, 2002-Ohio-4389.  This 
court did not accept Haynes’s discretionary appeal.  97 Ohio St.3d 1484, 2002-
Ohio-6866, 780 N.E.2d 287. 
{¶ 3} On January 17, 2006, Haynes filed a petition in the Court of 
Appeals for Scioto County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel appellee, 
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility Warden Edwin Voorhies, to release him from 
prison.  Haynes claimed that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict and 
sentence him for felony murder because the amendment of his indictment to 
charge that crime was improper for the reason that felony murder is not a lesser 
included offense of aggravated felony murder.  On February 13, 2006, the warden 
filed a motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief 
can be granted.  On February 16, 2006, the court of appeals granted the warden’s 
motion and dismissed the petition. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 4} In his appeal as of right, Haynes asserts that the court of appeals 
erred in dismissing his habeas corpus petition.  For the following reasons, 
Haynes’s claims lack merit. 
{¶ 5} As the court of appeals held, habeas corpus is not available to 
remedy a claim concerning the validity of an amendment to an indictment.  See, 
e.g., Howard v. Randle, 95 Ohio St.3d 281, 2002-Ohio-2122, 767 N.E.2d 268, ¶ 
6; State ex rel. Richard v. Seidner (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 149, 151, 666 N.E.2d 
1134.  Haynes’s claim “challenges the validity or sufficiency of his [amended] 
indictment, is nonjurisdictional in nature, and should have been raised in an 
appeal of his criminal conviction rather than in habeas corpus.”  State ex rel. 
Raglin v. Brigano (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 410, 696 N.E.2d 585. 
{¶ 6} Moreover, insofar as Haynes raised the issue of the propriety of the 
lesser included offense of felony murder (see Haynes, supra, at ¶ 115-116) in his 
previous unsuccessful appeal, res judicata bars him from using habeas corpus “ 
‘to gain successive appellate reviews of the same issue.’ ”  Smith v. Bradshaw, 
109 Ohio St.3d 50, 2006-Ohio-1829, 845 N.E.2d 516, ¶ 15, quoting State ex rel. 
Rash v. Jackson, 102 Ohio St.3d 145, 2004-Ohio-2053, 807 N.E.2d 344, ¶ 12. 
{¶ 7} Finally, even assuming the invalidity of Haynes’s murder 
conviction, he is not entitled to the writ, because he is also incarcerated on 
convictions for kidnapping and rape.  “ ‘Where a petitioner is incarcerated for 
several crimes, the fact that the sentencing court may have lacked jurisdiction to 
sentence him on one of the crimes does not warrant his release in habeas corpus.’ 
”  Marshall v. Lazaroff (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 443, 444, 674 N.E.2d 1378, quoting 
Swiger v. Seidner (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 685, 687, 660 N.E.2d 1214. 
{¶ 8} For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the court of 
appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
January Term, 2006 
3 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Shannon Haynes, pro se. 
______________________