Case Title: State ex rel. Simpson v. Lazaroff

Citation: 1996-Ohio-201

Docket Number: 19960123

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1996-06-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
The State ex rel. Simpson, Appellant, v. Lazaroff, Warden, Appellee. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Simpson v. Lazaroff (1996),     Ohio St.3d      .] 
Habeas corpus not available to challenge the sufficiency of an indictment. 
 
(No. 96-123 -- Submitted April 15, 1996 -- Decided June 5, 1996.) 
 
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Warren County, No. CA95-10-103. 
 
Appellant, Marcus Simpson, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in 
the Court of Appeals for Warren County, alleging that he was being unlawfully 
restrained of his liberty.  The court of appeals granted appellee’s motion to dismiss 
and dismissed Simpson’s petition.   
 
The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. 
____________________ 
 
Marcus Simpson, pro se. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Stuart A. Cole, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Simpson asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing 
his habeas corpus petition.  Simpson claims that the sentencing court lacked 
jurisdiction over him because the indictment on which he was charged, tried, 
 
2
convicted, and sentenced referred to him as “Mark Simpson” when his true name 
was “Marcus Simpson.”  As the court of appeals correctly concluded, Simpson 
merely challenged the sufficiency of the indictment rather than the jurisdiction of 
the sentencing court.  See R.C. 2941.03(C); Crim.R. 7(B); see, also, Lasure v. 
State (1869), 19 Ohio St. 43, 50 (An indictment serves as an accusation of a 
person for a crime rather than an accusation of a particular name.). 
 
Habeas corpus is not available to challenge either the validity or sufficiency 
of an indictment.  Luna v. Russell (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 561, 562, 639 N.E.2d 
1168, 1169.  Simpson possessed an adequate remedy by direct appeal to raise his 
contentions.  Luna, 70 Ohio St.3d at 562, 639 N.E.2d at 1169. 
 
Accordingly, 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.