Title: Amstutz v. Eberlin

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Amstutz v. Eberlin, 119 Ohio St.3d 421, 2008-Ohio-4538.] 
 
 
AMSTUTZ, APPELLANT, v. EBERLIN, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Amstutz v. Eberlin, 119 Ohio St.3d 421, 2008-Ohio-4538.] 
Court of appeals’ dismissal of petition for writ of habeas corpus affirmed — 
Appellant had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law to raise 
his claim. 
(No. 2008-0939 ─ Submitted August 26, 2008 ─ Decided September 16, 2008.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Belmont County, 
No. 07-BE-49, 2008-Ohio-1551. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing a petition for a writ 
of habeas corpus.  Because appellant had an adequate remedy in the ordinary 
course of law to raise his claim and res judicata bars his successive habeas corpus 
petition, we affirm. 
{¶ 2} In 1999, appellant, Ricky Lee Amstutz, pleaded guilty to one count 
of involuntary manslaughter with an accompanying firearm specification and one 
count of having weapons while under disability and was sentenced to an 
aggregate 14-year prison term.  We subsequently dismissed Amstutz’s petition for 
a writ of habeas corpus.  Amstutz v. Eberlin, 112 Ohio St.3d 1437, 2007-Ohio-
152, 860 N.E.2d 763. 
{¶ 3} Amstutz thereafter filed a second petition for a writ of habeas 
corpus, this time in the Court of Appeals for Belmont County.  Amstutz claimed 
that he was entitled to release from prison because the trial court had improperly 
enhanced his sentence in violation of several decisions, including State v. Foster, 
109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, 845 N.E.2d 470; Blakely v. Washington (2004), 
542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403; and Apprendi v. New Jersey 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
(2000), 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435.  Appellee, Belmont 
Correctional Institution Warden Michele Eberlin, filed a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion 
to dismiss Amstutz’s petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 
granted. 
{¶ 4} In his appeal as of right, Amstutz asserts that the court of appeals 
erred in dismissing his petition.  For the following reasons, Amstutz’s argument 
lacks merit. 
{¶ 5} First, Amstutz “has or had adequate remedies in the ordinary 
course of law, e.g., appeal and postconviction relief, for review of any alleged 
sentencing error.”  State ex rel. Jaffal v. Calabrese, 105 Ohio St.3d 440, 2005-
Ohio-2591, 828 N.E.2d 107, ¶ 5.  Amstutz could have appealed the sentence that 
he now challenges by extraordinary writ, but he did not. 
{¶ 6} Second, we rejected comparable claims in State ex rel. Golson v. 
Moore, 116 Ohio St.3d 308, 2007-Ohio-6434, 878 N.E.2d 1033, and State ex rel. 
Shackleford v. Moore, 116 Ohio St.3d 310, 2007-Ohio-6462, 878 N.E.2d 1035. 
{¶ 7} Finally, having filed a previous petition in which he could have 
raised these claims, Amstutz is barred by res judicata from filing a successive 
habeas corpus petition.  Everett v. Eberlin, 114 Ohio St.3d 199, 2007-Ohio-3832, 
870 N.E.2d 1190, ¶ 8. 
{¶ 8} Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Ricky Lee Amstutz, pro se. 
 
Nancy Hardin Rogers, Attorney General, and Diane Mallory, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
______________________