Case Title: Stewart v. Collins

Citation: 2022-Ohio-324

Docket Number: 2021-0832

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2022-02-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Stewart v. Collins, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-324.] 
 
 
 
 
 
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-324 
STEWART, APPELLANT, v. COLLINS, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Stewart v. Collins, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-324.] 
Habeas corpus—Court of appeals correctly dismissed complaint for failure to state 
a habeas claim—Judgment affirmed. 
(No. 2021-0832—Submitted December 7, 2021—Decided February 9, 2022.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Pickaway County, No. 21CA6. 
________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, Darin T. Stewart, appeals the judgment of the Fourth 
District Court of Appeals dismissing his complaint for a writ of habeas corpus 
against appellee, Warden Emma Collins, and has filed a motion for reversal of 
judgment.  We deny the motion and affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
I. BACKGROUND 
{¶ 2} Stewart is an inmate at the Pickaway Correctional Institution, where 
Collins is the warden.  In October 1986, Stewart was arrested and charged with three 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2 
counts of felonious assault for shooting three people.  After one victim later died from 
his wounds, Stewart was indicted on one count of aggravated murder, one count of 
aggravated robbery, and two counts of attempted aggravated murder—all with 
firearm specifications. 
{¶ 3} In January 1988, the trial court found Stewart not guilty of aggravated 
murder but guilty of what it called “the lesser included offense” of murder and not 
guilty of aggravated robbery.  The court also found him not guilty of both counts of 
attempted aggravated murder but guilty of one count of “the lesser included offense” 
of attempted murder.  He was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 18 years to 
life. 
{¶ 4} On March 29, 2021, Stewart filed a complaint for a writ of habeas 
corpus in the Fourth District Court of Appeals.  He alleged that murder and attempted 
murder, the offenses of which he was convicted, were neither charged in the 
indictment nor lesser included offenses of the charged crimes.  He argued that the 
trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict him of uncharged offenses and that therefore, 
his convictions are void and he is entitled to immediate release. 
{¶ 5} Collins filed a motion to dismiss, which the court of appeals granted.  
The court held that Stewart’s complaint failed to state a claim for relief in habeas 
corpus because his claim did not challenge the trial court’s jurisdiction.  In addition, 
the court held that habeas corpus would not issue, because Stewart’s maximum 
sentence had not expired.  Stewart appealed. 
II. ANALYSIS 
{¶ 6} A writ of habeas corpus “is warranted in certain extraordinary 
circumstances ‘where there is an unlawful restraint of a person’s liberty and there 
is no adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.’ ”  Johnson v. Timmerman-
Cooper, 93 Ohio St.3d 614, 616, 757 N.E.2d 1153 (2001), quoting Pegan v. 
Crawmer, 76 Ohio St.3d 97, 99, 666 N.E.2d 1091 (1996).  With few exceptions, 
habeas corpus will lie only to challenge the jurisdiction of the sentencing court.  
January Term, 2022 
 
3 
State ex rel. Quillen v. Wainwright, 152 Ohio St.3d 566, 2018-Ohio-922, 99 N.E.3d 
360, ¶ 6.  We review de novo a court of appeals’ dismissal of a habeas corpus 
petition.  State ex rel. Hunley v. Wainwright, 163 Ohio St.3d 301, 2021-Ohio-803, 
170 N.E.3d 16, ¶ 9. 
{¶ 7} Stewart devotes much of his merit brief to the argument that murder 
is not a lesser included offense of aggravated murder and that he therefore was 
convicted of unindicted offenses.  But we need not consider whether Stewart’s 
convictions were lawful.  The sole issue in this appeal is whether habeas corpus is 
a proper vehicle by which Stewart may challenge his convictions. 
{¶ 8} Stewart asserts that his convictions for allegedly unindicted offenses 
constitute a jurisdictional defect.  We rejected this argument in DeVore v. Black, __ 
Ohio St.3d __, 2021-Ohio-3153, __ N.E.3d __, ¶ 9, holding that “[s]uch an 
argument is an attack upon the sufficiency of the indictment, which is not 
cognizable in habeas corpus.”  Although Stewart reframes the issue as a due-
process violation, due-process claims are also not cognizable in habeas corpus.  See 
Jackson v. Johnson, 135 Ohio St.3d 364, 2013-Ohio-999, 986 N.E.2d 989, ¶ 3.  And 
to the extent that he is challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his 
convictions, that theory is unavailing for the same reason.  See State ex rel. Tarr v. 
Williams, 112 Ohio St.3d 51, 2006-Ohio-6368, 857 N.E.2d 1225, ¶ 4.  Therefore, 
the court of appeals correctly dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. 
{¶ 9} After the time to submit briefs in this appeal had elapsed, Stewart filed 
a pleading captioned “motion for reversal of judgment,” arguing that he is entitled 
to prevail in his appeal based on Collins’s alleged failure to timely file a merit brief.  
But Collins did timely file a merit brief, and even if she had not, Stewart’s motion 
would still fail because, for the reasons stated above, his merit brief does not 
provide a basis for reversal.  See S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.07(B) (if an appellee fails to file a 
merit brief, we may reverse the judgment on appeal “if the appellant’s brief 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4 
reasonably appears to sustain reversal”).  We therefore deny Stewart’s motion for 
summary reversal of his convictions. 
III. CONCLUSION 
{¶ 10} We deny Stewart’s motion to reverse his convictions and affirm the 
judgment of the court of appeals. 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, 
and BRUNNER, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Darin T. Stewart, pro se. 
Dave Yost, Attorney General, and M. Scott Criss, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellee. 
_________________