Case Title: Lynch v. Wilson

Citation: 2007-Ohio-3254

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2007-07-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Lynch v. Wilson, 114 Ohio St.3d 118, 2007-Ohio-3254.] 
 
 
LYNCH, APPELLANT, v. WILSON, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Lynch v. Wilson, 114 Ohio St.3d 118, 2007-Ohio-3254.] 
Appeal from dismissal of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — Habeas corpus 
is not available to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence — Judgment 
affirmed. 
(No. 2007-0274 ─ Submitted June 6, 2007 ─ Decided July 11, 2007.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Richland County, 
No. 2006 CA 119. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing a petition for a writ 
of habeas corpus.  Because the petition does not state a viable habeas corpus 
claim, we affirm. 
{¶ 2} In 2004, appellant, Cedric Lynch, was convicted of engaging in a 
pattern of corrupt activity, possession of cocaine, and possession of criminal tools 
and was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of seven years.  On appeal, the 
court of appeals rejected Lynch’s argument that his conviction for engaging in a 
pattern of corrupt activity was against the manifest weight of the evidence.  State 
v. Lynch, Lorain App. No. 04CA008531, 2005-Ohio-2401, at ¶ 8-12.  We did not 
accept Lynch’s appeal to this court for review.  State v. Lynch, 106 Ohio St.3d 
1546, 2005-Ohio-5343, 835 N.E.2d 728. 
{¶ 3} In April 2006, Lynch filed a motion to vacate his judgment of 
conviction and sentence, which the trial court denied.  On appeal, the court of 
appeals affirmed.  State v. Lynch, Lorain App. No. 06CA008938, 2006-Ohio-
5813.  In his motion, which the court of appeals treated as a petition for 
postconviction relief, Lynch argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
convict and sentence him for engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity because he 
was found guilty of only one predicate offense.  Id. at ¶ 5-6.  The court of appeals 
held that Lynch was not entitled to postconviction relief because (1) res judicata 
barred him from raising a claim that he could have raised on direct appeal and (2) 
the postconviction-relief petition was not timely.  Id. at ¶ 9-11. 
{¶ 4} Lynch thereafter filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for 
Richland County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel appellee, Richland 
Correctional Institution Warden Julius Wilson, to release him from prison.  Lynch 
again claimed that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict and sentence him 
for engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity because there was only one predicate 
offense.  In January 2007, the court of appeals dismissed the petition. 
{¶ 5} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. Lynch’s claim that 
there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction and sentence for 
engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity is not cognizable in habeas corpus. 
“[H]abeas corpus is not available to remedy claims concerning * * * the 
sufficiency of the evidence.”  State ex rel. Tarr v. Williams, 112 Ohio St.3d 51, 
2006-Ohio-6368, 857 N.E.2d 1225, ¶ 4.  See, also, Caudill v. Brigano, 100 Ohio 
St.3d 37, 2003-Ohio-4777, 795 N.E.2d 674, ¶ 3 (applying general rule to habeas 
corpus petition challenging convictions and sentence for several crimes, including 
engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity). 
{¶ 6} Lynch could have raised this claim in a direct appeal or petition for 
postconviction relief.  In fact, insofar as Lynch has already raised this claim, res 
judicata bars him from raising it again.  See, e.g., State ex rel. Rash v. Jackson, 
102 Ohio St.3d 145, 2004-Ohio-2053, 807 N.E.2d 344, ¶ 12. 
{¶ 7} Finally, even if these other remedies are no longer available to 
Lynch, he is not thereby entitled to an extraordinary writ.  Jackson v. Wilson, 100 
Ohio St.3d 315, 2003-Ohio-6112, 798 N.E.2d 1086, ¶ 9. 
Judgment affirmed. 
January Term, 2007 
3 
 
MOYER, C.J., PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Cedric Lynch, pro se. 
Marc Dann, Attorney General, and Jerri L. Fosnaught, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellee. 
______________________