Title: State ex rel. Beaucamp v. Lazaroff

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

The State ex rel. Beaucamp, Appellant, v. Lazaroff, Warden, Appellee. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Beaucamp v. Lazaroff (1997),    Ohio St.3d       .] 
Habeas corpus not available to attack the validity or the sufficiency of an 
information. 
 
(No. 96-1440 -- Submitted November 12, 1996 -- Decided January 15, 
1997.) 
 
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Pickaway County, No. 96 CA 13. 
 
In December 1995, appellant, Kasey W. Beaucamp. Jr., waived his right to 
be prosecuted by indictment pursuant to Crim.R. 7(A) and R.C. 2941.021.    
According to the entry signed by Beaucamp and his counsel, Beaucamp  requested 
that the case proceed by information after he was advised of his right to proceed 
by indictment.  Beaucamp subsequently pled guilty to three counts of gross sexual 
imposition and three counts of sexual battery as charged in the information.  The 
Darke County Common Pleas Court found Beaucamp guilty of the alleged 
offenses and sentenced him to six consecutive terms of twenty-four months in 
prison.   
 
In March 1996, Beaucamp filed an “application” in the Court of Appeals for 
Pickaway County alleging that the common pleas court was without jurisdiction to 
 
2
convict and sentence him because his waiver of the right to indictment was 
invalid.  Beaucamp claimed that he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his 
right to an indictment.  The court of appeals granted appellee’s motion and 
dismissed the habeas corpus action.  
 
This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. 
____________________ 
 
Smith, Hanna  & Adgate and Lawrence R. Smith, for appellant. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Lillian B. Earl, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Beaucamp asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing 
his habeas corpus action.  He claims that the common pleas court lost jurisdiction 
to convict him where he did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive his 
constitutional right to be prosecuted by indictment.  See Wells v. Sacks (1962), 
115 Ohio App. 219, 20 O.O.2d 304, 184 N.E.2d 449.   
 
The manner by which an accused is charged with a crime, whether by 
indictment returned by a grand jury or by information filed by the prosecuting 
attorney, is procedural rather than jurisdictional.  Wells v. Maxwell (1963), 174 
 
3
Ohio St. 198, 200, 22 O.O.2d 147, 148, 188 N.E.2d 160, 161; Ex parte Stephens 
(1960), 171 Ohio St. 323, 324, 14 O.O.2d 1, 2, 170 N.E.2d 735, 737.  After a 
judgment of conviction for the crimes charged in an indictment, the judgment 
binds a defendant for the crime for which he was convicted.  State v. Wozniak 
(1961), 172 Ohio St. 517, 522-523, 18 O.O.2d 58, 61, 178 N.E.2d 800, 804.  
Therefore, following conviction and sentence, the defendant’s remedy to challenge 
the validity or sufficiency of the indictment is by direct appeal rather than habeas 
corpus.  State ex rel. Simpson v. Lazaroff (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 571, 664 N.E.2d 
937.  Similarly, we hold that habeas corpus is not available to attack the validity or 
sufficiency of an information, since a judgment on an information also binds the 
defendant as long as the trial court has jurisdiction to try the defendant for the 
crime on which he was convicted and sentenced. 
 
In addition, Beaucamp pled guilty to the charges contained in the 
information.  His plea of guilty to the offenses waived any claimed right to an 
indictment.  Stacy v. Van Coren (1969), 18 Ohio St.2d 188, 189, 47 O.O.2d 397, 
398, 248 N.E.2d 603, 604 (Petitioner’s actions in voluntarily entering a plea of 
guilty while represented by counsel constituted a waiver of his constitutional right 
to an indictment or information.).  As in Stacy, Beaucamp was represented by 
 
4
counsel when he pled guilty and did not claim in his action that his guilty plea was 
involuntary. 
 
Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals properly dismissed Beaucamp’s 
habeas corpus action.  Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is 
affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
STRATTON, JJ., concur.