Title: State ex rel. Josso v. Seidner

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

The State ex rel. Josso, Appellant, v. Seidner, Warden, Appellee. 
The State ex rel. Yeager, Appellant, v. Seidner, Warden, Appellee.  (Two cases.) 
[Cite as State ex rel. Josso v. Seidner (1997),   Ohio St.3d    .] 
Habeas corpus not available to challenge either the validity or the 
sufficiency of an indictment. 
 
(Nos. 96-1303, 96-1558 and 96-1560 -- Submitted November 12, 1996 -- 
Decided January 15, 1997.) 
 
Appeals from the Court of Appeals for Lorain County, Nos. 96CA006408, 
96CA006403 and 96CA006401. 
 
These are appeals from dismissals of habeas corpus petitions filed in the 
Court of Appeals for Lorain County by appellants, Timothy Josso and Dennis Paul 
Yeager, inmates incarcerated in the Lorain Correctional Institution under the 
custody of appellee, Warden Larry Seidner.  In these three cases, appellants filed 
similar form petitions for a writ of habeas corpus in the court of appeals.  They 
alleged that their indictments contained no allegation that the charged offenses 
were committed at some place within the territorial jurisdictions of their 
sentencing courts.  The court of appeals granted appellee’s motions and dismissed 
the petitions.   
 
2
 
These causes are now before this court upon appeals as of right. 
____________________ 
 
Timothy Josso, pro se. 
 
Dennis Paul Yeager, pro se. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, Michael L. Bachman and 
Stephanie L. Harris, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Appellants assert in their propositions of law that the court of 
appeals erred in dismissing their habeas corpus petitions.  Appellants contend that 
their indictments were invalid under R.C. 2941.03(D) because none of the charges 
alleged that the offenses were committed within the territorial jurisdictions of their 
sentencing courts.  Appellants’ contention is meritless because it merely attacks 
the validity or sufficiency of their indictments.  Such challenges are cognizable on 
direct appeal rather than by habeas corpus.  State ex rel. Wilcox v. Seidner (1996), 
76 Ohio St.3d 412, 414-415, 667 N.E.2d 1220, 1222; State ex rel. Yauger v. 
Seidner (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 69, 70, ___ N.E.2d ___ , ___.  In addition, the 
indictments attached to appellants’ petitions establish that the indictments 
complied with R.C. 2941.03(D) by alleging that the charged offenses were 
 
3
committed within the sentencing courts’ territorial jurisdictions.  Based on the 
foregoing, the court of appeals properly dismissed appellants’ petitions.  The 
judgments of the court of appeals are affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgments affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
STRATTON, JJ., concur.