Case Title: State ex rel. Richard v. Seidner

Citation: 1996-Ohio-54

Docket Number: 19960383

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1996-07-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
The State ex rel. Richard, Appellant, v. Seidner, Warden, Appellee. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Richard v. Seidner (1996),  Ohio St.3d    .] 
Civil procedure -- Motion for relief from judgment -- Court of appeals does 
not abuse its discretion in overruling a Civ.R. 60(B) motion without 
conducting an evidentiary hearing, when. 
 
(No. 96-383 -- Submitted June 4, 1996 -- Decided July 24, 1996.) 
 
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Lorain County, No. 95CA006193. 
 
In February 1987, the Cuyahoga County Grand Jury indicted appellant, 
Donald L. Richard, Sr., on one count of aggravated murder, one count of having a 
weapon while under disability, and various specifications. At the commencement 
of the trial, the prosecutor amended the aggravated murder count to charge the 
lesser included offense of murder.  The trial court convicted Richard of murder, 
having a weapon while under disability, and two firearms specifications, and 
sentenced him accordingly.  On appeal, the judgment was affirmed.  State v. 
Richard (Oct. 20, 1988), Cuyahoga App. No. 54228, unreported, 1988 WL 
112872. 
 
In July 1995, Richard filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the 
Court of Appeals for Lorain County.  Richard claimed entitlement to habeas 
corpus relief based on his allegations that the trial court acted without jurisdiction 
 
2
in (1) amending the indictment charge of aggravated murder to murder, and (2) 
conducting a bench trial on the charge of having a weapon while under disability  
without strictly complying with the jury trial waiver requirements of R.C. 2945.05.  
 
The court of appeals dismissed the petition.  It held that the trial court was 
authorized to amend the indictment because a defendant may be found guilty of a 
lesser included offense even if the lesser offense is not included in the indictment.  
White v. Maxwell (1963), 174 Ohio St. 186, 22 O.O.2d 140, 187 N.E.2d 878; R.C. 
2945.74.  The court of appeals further determined that since Richard’s challenge 
of his murder conviction was meritless, he was not entitled to habeas corpus relief 
on his remaining claim attacking his conviction for having a weapon while under 
disability.  See, e.g., Swiger v. Seidner (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 685, 687, 660 N.E.2d 
1214, 1216 (“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.”). 
 
Richard subsequently filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to 
Civ.R. 60(B)(1) and (5), and also requested an evidentiary hearing on his motion.   
Richard argued, inter alia, that the court of appeals erred in denying the writ 
because he could not have been convicted of the lesser included offense of murder 
 
3
absent a jury instruction on the lesser offense.1   The court of appeals overruled the 
motion.   
 
The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. 
____________________ 
 
Donald L. Richard, Sr., pro se. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Charles L. Wille, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
 ___________________  
 
Per Curiam.  Richard asserts in his sole proposition of law that the court of 
appeals erred in overruling his Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment 
without conducting an evidentiary hearing, because a genuine material dispute 
appears in the record. 
 
In an appeal from a Civ.R. 60(B) determination, a reviewing court must 
determine whether the trial court abused its discretion.  Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. 
Adams (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 17, 20, 520 N.E.2d 564, 566.  An abuse of discretion 
connotes conduct which is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.  State ex 
rel. Edwards v. Toledo City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 106, 
107, 647 N.E.2d 799, 801. 
 
4
 
In order to prevail on a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment, the 
movant must establish that “(1) the party has a meritorious defense or claim to 
present if relief is granted; (2) the party is entitled to relief under one of the 
grounds stated in Civ.R. 60(B)(1) through (5); and (3) the motion is made within a 
reasonable time, and, where the grounds of relief are Civ.R. 60(B)(1), (2) or (3), 
not more than one year after the judgment, order or proceeding was entered or 
taken.”  GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc. (1976), 47 Ohio St.2d 
146, 1 O.O.3d 86, 351 N.E.2d 113, paragraph two of the syllabus.  Civ.R. 60(B) 
relief is improper if any one of the foregoing requirements is not satisfied.  Strack 
v. Pelton (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 172, 174, 637 N.E.2d 914, 915. 
 
In addition, if the Civ.R. 60(B) motion contains allegations of operative 
facts which would warrant relief from judgment, the trial court should grant a 
hearing to take evidence to verify those facts before it rules on the motion.  
Coulson v. Coulson (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 12, 16, 5 OBR 73, 77, 448 N.E.2d 809, 
812.  Conversely, an evidentiary hearing is not required where the motion and 
attached evidentiary material do not contain allegations of operative facts which 
would warrant relief under Civ.R. 60(B).  S. Ohio Coal Co. v. Kidney (1995), 100 
Ohio App.3d 661, 667, 654 N.E.2d 1017, 1021. 
 
5
 
The court of appeals properly dismissed Richard’s petition for a writ of 
habeas corpus, since, as to his murder conviction, he alleged that the sentencing 
court lacked authority to amend the original indictment.  Richard essentially 
challenged the validity of his amended indictment, a claim which is not cognizable 
in habeas corpus.  Luna v. Russell (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 561, 562, 639 N.E.2d 
1168, 1169 (Habeas corpus is not available to challenge either the validity or the 
sufficiency of an indictment.). 
 
Richard contends on appeal that he is entitled to relief from the dismissal of 
his habeas corpus petition because that dismissal was inconsistent with the facts in 
his criminal trial, i.e., it ignored his claims that the jury was not instructed on the 
lesser included offense of murder.  Richard apparently asserts that even assuming 
the propriety of the amended indictment or the ability of the jury to return a guilty 
verdict on a lesser included offense not charged in the indictment, he could not be 
convicted of the lesser included offense of murder without a jury instruction on 
that offense.  Richard’s assertion fails because any claim of an improper 
instruction could have been raised in his direct appeal from his conviction and 
sentence and consequently does not warrant habeas corpus relief.  Flora v. Rogers 
(1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 441, 442, 619 N.E.2d 690; see, also, Porter v. Ohio Parole 
 
6
Bd. (Mar. 8, 1995), Lorain App. Nos. 94CA005878 and 94CA005899, unreported, 
1995 WL 92147. 
 
Based on the foregoing, we find that Richard’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion did not 
allege operative facts which would warrant relief from judgment.  The court of 
appeals did not abuse its discretion in overruling his Civ.R. 60(B) motion without 
conducting an evidentiary hearing.  We affirm the judgment of the court of 
appeals. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
                                          
 
1   Richard also contended in his Civ.R. 60(B) motion that if he had been permitted 
full discovery, he would have amended his petition to include another claim.  
However, since Richard does not claim any error by the court of appeals as to this 
Civ.R. 60(B) contention, we need not address it.