Case Title: Jackson v. Johnson

Citation: 2013-Ohio-999

Docket Number: 2012-1842

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2013-03-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Jackson v. Johnson, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-999.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2013-OHIO-999 
JACKSON, APPELLANT, v. JOHNSON, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Jackson v. Johnson, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-999.] 
Habeas corpus—Petition insufficient—R.C. 2725.04—Claim not cognizable in 
habeas corpus—Adequate remedy at law—Judgment dismissing petition 
for writ affirmed. 
(No. 2012-1842—Submitted March 13, 2013—Decided March 21, 2013.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Madison County,  
No. CA2012-07-015. 
_____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals granting the motion 
of appellee, Madison Correctional Institution Warden Rod B. Johnson, to dismiss 
the petition of appellant, Anthony Jackson, for a writ of habeas corpus.  Jackson’s 
claims are defective, first, because he did not attach a complete copy of his 
commitment papers to the petition, as required by R.C. 2725.04(D).  Specifically, 
Jackson was first sentenced on March 27, 2000, but the journal entry attached to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
his complaint for that date appears to lack the page containing the judge’s 
signature.  In addition, he failed to attach the resentencing entry from November 
1, 2011.  Second, his claims have no merit because they are not appropriate for 
review in habeas corpus. 
{¶ 2} Although the court of appeals did not consider the issue, failure to 
attach the commitment papers to a petition for habeas corpus is fatally defective.  
Hughley v. Saunders, 123 Ohio St.3d 90, 2009-Ohio-4089, 914 N.E.2d 370. 
{¶ 3} But even if Jackson had properly attached his commitment papers, 
the claims for which he seeks relief are not cognizable in habeas corpus.  Habeas 
corpus is not generally available when there is an adequate remedy at law.  
Jackson claims that he was denied due process because the trial court failed to 
properly instruct the jury.  He had an adequate remedy by way of appeal for this 
claim.  State ex rel. Nickleson v. Mayberry, 131 Ohio St.3d 416, 2012-Ohio-1300, 
965 N.E.2d 1000, ¶ 2, citing Smith v. Mitchell, 80 Ohio St.3d 624, 625, 687 
N.E.2d 749 (1998). 
{¶ 4} Jackson claims sentencing error in that he was given two separate 
sentences for what he argues were allied offenses.  Again, he had an adequate 
remedy by way of appeal.  Smith v. Voorhies, 119 Ohio St.3d 345, 2008-Ohio-
4479, 894 N.E.2d 44, ¶ 10, citing Mosely v. Echols, 62 Ohio St.3d 75, 578 N.E.2d 
454 (1991) (“allied-offense claims are nonjurisdictional and are not cognizable in 
habeas corpus”). 
{¶ 5} Jackson also claims that he has been denied a right to appeal 
because his initial appeal was dismissed for a procedural failure and two 
attempted delayed appeals were denied.  However, the availability of appeal is an 
adequate remedy at law, even if that remedy is unsuccessful.  Childers v. 
Wingard, 83 Ohio St.3d 427, 428, 700 N.E.2d 588 (1998). 
{¶ 6} Moreover, because the merits of his claims have never been heard 
on appeal, Jackson has a potential remedy in that he could petition the court of 
January Term, 2013 
3 
 
appeals to proceed with a delayed or reinstated appeal.  See, e.g., State v. 
Douglas, 8th Dist. No. 88367, 2007-Ohio-5941 (an appeal was reinstated because 
appellate counsel had failed to raise an issue).  Because he has adequate remedies 
at law, habeas corpus relief is inappropriate. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Anthony K. Jackson, pro se. 
 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Thelma Thomas Price, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
______________________