Case Title: In re Coleman

Citation: 2002-Ohio-1804

Docket Number: 20020614

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2002-04-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as In re Coleman, 95 Ohio St.3d 284, 2002-Ohio-1804, 2002-Ohio-1804.] 
 
 
IN RE COLEMAN. 
[Cite as In re Coleman, 95 Ohio St.3d 284, 2002-Ohio-1804.] 
Habeas corpus — Relief denied when adequate remedy existed on direct appeal 
— Claim not raised in direct appeal — Petition denied. 
(No. 2002-0614 — Submitted April 17, 2002 — Decided April 19, 2002.) 
IN HABEAS CORPUS. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Petitioner, Alton Coleman, is scheduled to be executed on April 26, 
2002, for the aggravated murder of Marlene Walters.  He was convicted of this offense 
in 1985.  We affirmed his conviction and death sentence in State v. Coleman (1988), 37 
Ohio St.3d 286, 525 N.E.2d 792.  Coleman has also completed the state postconviction 
review process.  See State v. Coleman (Mar. 17, 1993), Hamilton App. No. C-900811, 
1993 WL 74756, jurisdictional motion overruled (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 1450, 619 
N.E.2d 419.  In State v. Coleman (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 1407, 637 N.E.2d 5, we 
affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals rejecting Coleman’s motion to reinstate 
his direct appeal.  Subsequently, the United States District Court for the Southern 
District of Ohio denied Coleman federal habeas corpus relief.  The United States Court 
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed that judgment.  Coleman v. Mitchell (C.A.6, 
2001), 244 F.3d 533, certiorari denied (2001), __ U.S. __, 122 S.Ct. 405, 151 L.Ed.2d 
307. 
{¶ 2} Coleman has now filed a petition in habeas corpus, invoking the original 
jurisdiction of this court under Section 2(B)(1)(c), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution.  
Accompanying his petition is a motion for an alternative writ of habeas corpus, 
requesting a stay of execution. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 3} According to the petition, the state improperly removed 9 of 12 black 
prospective jurors by means of peremptory challenges at Coleman’s trial in 1985.  
Coleman objected, but the prosecutor declined to explain why he had challenged the 
jurors in question, and the trial court did not require the prosecutor to offer any 
explanation.  Citing Batson v. Kentucky (1986), 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 
L.Ed.2d 69, Coleman contends that we should determine whether there was purposeful 
discrimination in the jury selection. 
{¶ 4} Coleman’s petition is insufficient on its face to warrant habeas relief.  
“[H]abeas corpus, like other extraordinary writ actions, is not available when there is an 
adequate remedy at law.”  Gaskins v. Shiplevy (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 380, 383, 667 
N.E.2d 1194.  See, also, State ex rel. Fryerson v. Tate (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 481, 485, 
705 N.E.2d 353; State ex rel. Pirman v. Money (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 591, 593, 635 
N.E.2d 26.  Coleman had a fully adequate remedy at law: he could have raised this 
issue on direct appeal.  He knew that the claim existed, for he had raised it in the trial 
court.  Moreover, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Batson v. 
Kentucky on April 30, 1986, over seven months before the Court of Appeals for the 
First Appellate District issued its decision affirming his conviction. 
{¶ 5} Yet, as Coleman concedes, he did not raise this claim on direct appeal.  
A litigant may not use habeas corpus as a substitute for appeal.  See, e.g., Ex parte 
Womack (1960), 171 Ohio St. 392, 14 O.O.2d 150, 171 N.E.2d 514; In re Piazza 
(1966), 7 Ohio St.2d 102, 36 O.O.2d 84, 218 N.E.2d 459; Bellman v. Jago (1988), 38 
Ohio St.3d 55, 526 N.E.2d 308; Ellis v. McMackin (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 161, 602 
N.E.2d 611. 
{¶ 6} Because Coleman had an adequate remedy at law by way of direct 
appeal, his claim is not cognizable in habeas corpus.  Accordingly, Coleman’s petition 
must be denied.  Moreover, since Coleman’s claim is at odds with settled habeas law, it 
merits neither a stay of execution nor an alternative writ.  We therefore deny the motion 
for an alternative writ. 
January Term, 2002 
 
3 
Writ denied; 
motion denied. 
 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
David C. Stebbins and Dale A. Baich, Assistant Federal Public Defender, 
for petitioner. 
__________________