Case Title: State ex rel. Barnette v. Hill

Citation: 2022-Ohio-2469

Docket Number: 2021-1595

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2022-07-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. Barnette v. Hill, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-2469.] 
 
 
 
 
 
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. 2022-OHIO-2469 
THE STATE EX REL. BARNETTE, APPELLANT, v. HILL, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Barnette v. Hill, Slip Opinion No.  
2022-Ohio-2469.] 
Habeas corpus—Allegations of errors in grand-jury process not cognizable in 
habeas corpus—Adequate remedy in ordinary course of law to challenge 
validity of an indictment—Court of appeals’ judgment dismissing complaint 
affirmed. 
(No. 2021-1595—Submitted May 24, 2022—Decided July 20, 2022.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Marion County, No. 9-21-0030. 
________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, Lorenza Barnette, an inmate at the Marion Correctional 
Institution, appeals the judgment of the Third District Court of Appeals dismissing 
his petition for a writ of habeas corpus against the prison’s warden, appellee Leon 
Hill.  Barnette has also filed a motion for an order compelling the Mahoning County 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2 
Clerk of Courts to submit the complete record of his underlying criminal case for 
consideration in this appeal.  We deny the motion and affirm the judgment of the 
court of appeals. 
I.  Background 
{¶ 2} In October 2009, Barnette was indicted in Mahoning County on 
multiple felonies, including aggravated murder.  At trial, he was convicted of four 
counts of aggravated murder, two counts of kidnapping, and one count of arson.  He 
was sentenced to two consecutive terms of life in prison without the possibility of 
parole for the aggravated murders and an aggregate prison term of 21 years and 6 
months for the other felonies; all sentences were ordered to be served consecutively. 
{¶ 3} The Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and 
sentences.  State v. Barnette, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 11 MA 196, 2014-Ohio-5673.  
We declined to accept jurisdiction over an appeal.  143 Ohio St.3d 1405, 2015-Ohio-
2747, 34 N.E.3d 133. 
{¶ 4} On September 13, 2021, Barnette filed a petition for a writ of habeas 
corpus in the Third District.  He claimed to be entitled to “an order of actual 
innocence” and immediate release because of various alleged errors in the grand-jury 
process that led to his indictment.  The Third District granted Hill’s motion to dismiss 
the petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.  3d Dist. 
Marion No. 9-21-30. 
{¶ 5} Barnette appealed.  Before filing his merit brief, Barnette filed a motion 
to supplement the record, which Hill opposed. 
II.  Legal analysis 
A.  The Third District correctly dismissed the petition 
{¶ 6} We review de novo a court of appeals’ judgment dismissing a petition 
for a writ of habeas corpus.  Davis v. Hill, 116 Ohio St.3d 516, 2022-Ohio-485, 187 
N.E.3d 543, ¶ 6.  To be entitled to a writ of habeas corpus, a petitioner must show 
that he is being unlawfully restrained of his liberty and that he is entitled to 
January Term, 2022 
 
3 
immediate release from prison or other confinement.  R.C. 2725.01; State ex rel. 
Cannon v. Mohr, 155 Ohio St.3d 213, 2018-Ohio-4184, 120 N.E.3d 776, ¶ 10.  “A 
writ of habeas corpus ‘will lie only to challenge the jurisdiction of the sentencing 
court.  R.C. 2725.05.  The few situations in which habeas corpus may lie to correct 
a nonjurisdictional error are those in which there is no adequate remedy at law.’ ”  
Kneuss v. Sloan, 146 Ohio St.3d 248, 2016-Ohio-3310, 54 N.E.3d 1242, ¶ 6, 
quoting Appenzeller v. Miller, 136 Ohio St.3d 378, 2013-Ohio-3719, 996 N.E.2d 
919, ¶ 9. 
{¶ 7} In his petition, Barnette alleged that his convictions are void due to 
errors in the grand-jury process.  Specifically, he claimed that (1) there was no oath 
or affirmation at the grand jury, (2) the indictment was not properly returned, (3) 
the prosecutor improperly withheld portions of the grand-jury record, (4) the grand 
jury lacked a quorum, (5) there was no probable-cause hearing before the grand 
jury initiated its investigation, (6) the grand-jury members were not selected or 
summoned according to law, and (7) the prosecutor presented misleading and 
insufficient evidence to the grand jury.  These allegations do not state a claim 
cognizable in habeas corpus. 
{¶ 8} “The manner by which an accused is charged with a crime is 
procedural rather than jurisdictional, and after a conviction for crimes charged in 
an indictment, the judgment binds the defendant for the crime for which he was 
convicted.”  Orr v. Mack, 83 Ohio St.3d 429, 430, 700 N.E.2d 590 (1998).  An 
inmate has an adequate remedy by way of direct appeal to challenge the validity of 
an indictment.  McDougald v. Bowerman, 161 Ohio St.3d 268, 2020-Ohio-3942, 
162 N.E.3d 762, ¶ 9.  Therefore, challenges to the validity of an indictment are not 
cognizable in habeas corpus.  State ex rel. Tarr v. Williams, 112 Ohio St.3d 51, 
2006-Ohio-6368, 857 N.E.2d 1225, ¶ 4. 
{¶ 9} Barnette’s petition reframed the issue as a due-process violation, but 
due-process claims are not cognizable in habeas corpus.  Jackson v. Johnson, 135 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4 
Ohio St.3d 364, 2013-Ohio-999, 986 N.E.2d 989, ¶ 3.  Nor can Barnette’s petition 
withstand dismissal by alleging prosecutorial misconduct.  State ex rel. Hadlock v. 
McMackin, 61 Ohio St.3d 433, 434, 575 N.E.2d 184 (1991) (allegation that 
prosecutor secured indictment through fraud is not cognizable in habeas). 
{¶ 10} For these reasons, we hold that the court of appeals correctly 
dismissed Barnette’s petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 
granted. 
B.  Barnette is not entitled to relief based on a legal theory presented for the first 
time on appeal 
{¶ 11} In his merit brief on appeal, Barnette abandons his challenges to the 
validity of his indictment in favor of an entirely new argument.  Barnette’s 
kidnapping conviction was subject to a mandatory five-year term of postrelease 
control, which was not imposed in the 2009 sentencing entry.  In 2019, the trial 
court held a resentencing hearing and issued a new sentencing entry imposing 
postrelease control.  On appeal, the Seventh District held that the trial court had 
exceeded the scope of its authority by holding a full resentencing hearing.  The 
Seventh District reversed and remanded “for the limited purpose to allow the trial 
court to hold a notification of post release control hearing in accordance with R.C. 
2929.191.”  State v. Barnette, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 19 MA 0114, 2020-Ohio-
6817, ¶ 26.  On remand, the trial court journalized an entry in June 2021 that 
provided notice of postrelease control but did not expressly reimpose the prison 
sentences.  Barnette now argues that the June 2021 entry controls and because that 
entry did not reimpose his other sentences, he is entitled to immediate release. 
{¶ 12} We decline to consider this argument.  Barnette may not raise a new 
argument for the first time on appeal.  In an extraordinary-writ case, “a relator 
‘waive[s] new claims that he raises on appeal by failing to raise them in his original 
or amended petition.’ ”  (Brackets sic.)  State ex rel. Russell v. Dept. of Rehab. & 
Corr., 153 Ohio St.3d 274, 2018-Ohio-2693, 104 N.E.3d 767, ¶ 12, quoting State 
January Term, 2022 
 
5 
ex rel. Scruggs v. Sadler, 102 Ohio St.3d 160, 2004-Ohio-2054, 807 N.E.2d 357,  
¶ 6. 
C.  The motion to supplement the record 
{¶ 13} In his motion to supplement the record, Barnette complains that the 
record before this court contains only the habeas proceedings in the Third District.  
He asks us to order the Mahoning County clerk to transfer the complete trial-court 
record to aid this court in determining which sentencing entry is applicable.  But if 
Barnette considered the June 2021 entry relevant to his claims, then he should have 
attached it to his petition when he filed it in September 2021. 
{¶ 14} Barnette filed a habeas petition based on arguments that did not state 
a claim for relief as a matter of law.  Just as he may not raise arguments for the first 
time on appeal, he may not add evidence to the appellate record in support of those 
claims.  Because Barnette has waived any arguments arising out of the June 2021 
nunc pro tunc entry, it follows that the trial-court file has no relevant information.  
We therefore deny the motion to supplement the record. 
III.  Conclusion 
{¶ 15} We affirm the court of appeals’ dismissal of Barnette’s petition. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, 
and BRUNNER, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Lorenza Barnette, pro se. 
Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Maura O’Neill Jaite, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellee. 
_________________