Case Title: State ex rel. Morris v. Leonard

Citation: 1999-Ohio-215

Docket Number: 19990937

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1999-09-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Morris v. Leonard, 86 Ohio St.3d 624, 1999-Ohio-215.] 
 
 
 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. MORRIS, APPELLANT, v. LEONARD, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Morris v. Leonard (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 624.] 
Habeas corpus to compel relator’s release from prison — Dismissal of petition 
affirmed. 
(No. 99-937 — Submitted August 25, 1999 — Decided September 29, 1999.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Allen County, No. 1-99-14. 
 
Appellant, John E. Morris, pled guilty to the offense of attempted arson, as 
charged in a bill of information.  In 1994, Morris was convicted of the charged 
offense and sentenced to a prison term of four to ten years.  The common pleas 
court suspended execution of the sentence and placed Morris on probation for five 
years with the conditions that he serve ninety days in the county jail and make 
restitution. 
 
In 1999, Morris filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Allen County for 
a writ of habeas corpus to compel his release from prison.  Morris claimed that his 
1994 conviction was void because he had never waived his right to an indictment 
pursuant to R.C. 2941.021.  The court of appeals dismissed the petition. 
 
This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. 
__________________ 
 
John E. Morris, pro se. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Morris asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his 
habeas corpus petition.  For the following reasons, Morris’s assertion is meritless. 
 
Morris did not comply with the R.C. 2725.04(D) requirement to attach all of 
his pertinent commitment papers.  Boyd v. Money (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 388, 389, 
696 N.E.2d 568, 569.  It is apparent that Morris is incarcerated not because of his 
1994 sentence, which placed him on probation, but due to a revocation of that 
 
2 
probation.  Morris did not attach any revocation entry to his petition. 
 
In addition, Morris’s plea of guilty to the charge contained in the 
information waived any claimed right to an indictment.  And habeas corpus is not 
available to attack the validity or sufficiency of an information because a judgment 
on an information binds a defendant as long as the trial court has jurisdiction to try 
the defendant for the crime on which the defendant is convicted and sentenced.  
State ex rel. Beaucamp v. Lazaroff (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 237, 238, 673 N.E.2d 
1273, 1274. 
 
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.