Case Title: Howard v. Randle

Citation: 2002-Ohio-2122

Docket Number: 20012106

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2002-05-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Howard v. Randle, 95 Ohio St.3d 281, 2002-Ohio-2122.] 
 
 
HOWARD, APPELLANT, v. RANDLE, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Howard v. Randle, 95 Ohio St.3d 281, 2002-Ohio-2122.] 
Habeas corpus sought to compel relator’s immediate release from prison — Court 
of appeals’ dismissal of petition affirmed, when. 
(No. 2001-2106 — Submitted April 10, 2002 — Decided May 15, 2002.) 
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Ross County, No. 01CA2601. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
In April 1978, the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 
convicted appellant, Nebraska Howard, upon his guilty plea, of two counts of 
kidnapping and three counts of rape, and sentenced him to an aggregate prison term 
of twelve to seventy-five years. The common pleas court found Howard to be a 
psychopathic offender, suspended the execution of his sentence, and committed him 
to the former Department of Mental Health and Retardation for an indefinite period, 
“until released from said institution.” 
{¶2} 
In November 1978, after Howard apparently attempted to escape, the 
common pleas court revoked its previous order, terminated the suspension of 
Howard’s prison sentence, and ordered the execution of the sentence. 
{¶3} 
In April 2001, Howard filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for 
Ross County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel his immediate release from prison. 
Howard claimed that he was entitled to discharge from confinement because of an 
unconstitutional amendment of his indictment, a defective indictment, sentencing 
errors, including a violation of the prohibition against ex post facto laws, breach of a 
plea agreement, fraud, double jeopardy, and his own incompetence. Appellee, 
Chillicothe Correctional Institution Warden Michael Randle, filed a motion to 
dismiss. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶4} 
In October 2001, the court of appeals granted the warden’s motion 
and dismissed the petition. 
{¶5} 
In his appeal as of right, Howard asserts that the court of appeals 
erred by dismissing his habeas corpus petition. 
{¶6} 
Howard’s assertion lacks merit because his claims are not cognizable 
in state habeas corpus. See, e.g., State ex rel. Bragg v. Seidner (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 
87, 88, 748 N.E.2d 532 (validity or sufficiency of an indictment or an amended 
indictment); Brown v. Leonard (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 593, 716 N.E.2d 183 
(sentencing errors); Majoros v. Collins (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 442, 596 N.E.2d 1038 
(ex post facto provisions); cf. State ex rel. Seikbert v. Wilkinson (1994), 69 Ohio 
St.3d 489, 633 N.E.2d 1128 (adequate legal remedy to raise claim of breach of plea 
agreement precluded extraordinary relief in mandamus); Douglas v. Money (1999), 
85 Ohio St.3d 348, 708 N.E.2d 697 (conspiracy and bias); State ex rel. Tran v. 
McMackin (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 165, 580 N.E.2d 782 (fraud and trickery); Thomas 
v. Huffman (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 266, 703 N.E.2d 315 (double jeopardy); Krauter v. 
Maxwell (1965), 3 Ohio St.2d 142, 32 O.O.2d 141, 209 N.E.2d 571 (mental 
incompetence of an accused in a criminal proceeding). Howard had adequate 
remedies in the ordinary course of law to raise these claims. 
{¶7} 
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. 
__________________ 
Nebraska Howard, pro se. 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Diane Mallory, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
__________________