Title: Larsen v. State

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Larsen v. State, 92 Ohio St.3d 69, 2001-Ohio-133.] 
 
 
 
LARSEN, APPELLANT, v. The STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Larsen v. State (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 69.] 
Habeas corpus sought to compel relator’s release from confinement — 
Complaint in habeas corpus dismissed as moot when relator is released 
from confinement prior to hearing. 
(No. 00-1721 — Submitted May 16, 2001 — Decided June 13, 2001.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Noble County, No. 281. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  In September 1999, appellant, John D. Larsen, was released 
on his own recognizance after being charged with forgery.  In November 1999, a 
grand jury returned an indictment charging Larsen with one count of failure to 
appear after being released, in violation of R.C. 2937.99.  In February 2000, the 
Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas convicted Larsen of failure to appear 
and sentenced him to a prison term of one year, crediting him with eighteen days 
for time served. 
 
In July 2000, Larsen filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Noble 
County for a writ of habeas corpus on the grounds that his indictment was 
defective because it failed to state an indictable offense.  In August 2000, the 
court of appeals dismissed the petition. 
 
In his appeal of right, Larsen claims that the court of appeals erred in 
dismissing his petition.  For the following reasons, we dismiss this appeal as 
moot. 
 
Habeas corpus is generally appropriate in the criminal context only if the 
petitioner is entitled to immediate release from prison.  Douglas v. Money (1999), 
85 Ohio St.3d 348, 349, 708 N.E.2d 697, 698.  If a habeas corpus petitioner 
seeking release is subsequently released, the petitioner’s habeas corpus claim is 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
normally rendered moot.  Pewitt v. Lorain Correctional Inst. (1992), 64 Ohio 
St.3d 470, 472, 597 N.E.2d 92, 94.  Larsen’s appeal is moot because his one-year 
sentence has expired and he has been released from prison. 
 
Moreover, this is not a claim that is “capable of repetition, yet evading 
review.”  Spencer v. Kemna (1998), 523 U.S. 1, 17, 118 S.Ct. 978, 988, 140 
L.Ed.2d 43, 56; State ex rel. Calvary v. Upper Arlington (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 
229, 231, 729 N.E.2d 1182, 1185.  In fact, we have frequently reviewed these 
issues and have consistently held that claims challenging the validity and 
sufficiency of an indictment are not cognizable in habeas corpus.  See, e.g., 
Buoscio v. Bagley (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 134, 135, 742 N.E.2d 652, 653; Gunnell 
v. Lazaroff (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 76, 76-77, 734 N.E.2d 829, 830. 
 
Based on the foregoing, we dismiss this appeal as moot. 
Appeal dismissed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
John D. Larsen, pro se. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Thelma Thomas Price, 
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. 
__________________