Title: Thomas v. Collins

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

Thomas, Appellant, v. Collins, Appellee. 
1 
[Cite as Thomas v. Collins (1996), _____ Ohio St.3d _____.] 
2 
Criminal law -- Issues involving relationship of the indictment to the 
3 
evidence may be appealed -- Habeas corpus not available 
4 
when petitioner has adequate remedy at law by way of appeal. 
5 
 
(No. 95-1275--Submitted December 5, 1995--Decided January 31, 
6 
1996.) 
7 
 
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Scioto County, No. 
8 
94CA002275. 
9 
 
In 1988, appellant, Lewis Thomas III, was convicted of aggravated 
10 
murder, aggravated robbery with specifications, and three counts of felonious 
11 
assault with specifications.  He was sentenced to life imprisonment with 
12 
possibility of parole after twenty years for the aggravated murder and to 
13 
indefinite terms of imprisonment on the other convictions.  The court of 
14 
appeals affirmed the convictions, but remanded for resentencing.  State v. 
15 
Thomas (Apr. 4, 1990), Hamilton App. No. C-880637, unreported.  On 
16 
September 2, 1994, he filed a complaint for a writ of habeas corpus in the 
17 
Court of Appeals for Scioto County, alleging that the trial court that 
18 
convicted him lacked jurisdiction to do so because he was convicted of 
19 
 
2
complicity under R.C. 2923.03 (A)(2) without being so charged in the 
1 
indictment. 
2 
 
The state filed a return of the writ.  The court of appeals held that 
3 
habeas corpus is not available when the court has jurisdiction to convict and 
4 
sentence the defendant and that the trial court had such jurisdiction in this 
5 
case. 
6 
 
Appellant appeals as of right.  Appellee has not filed a brief, but has 
7 
filed a motion to strike appellant’s brief or dismiss because appellant failed to 
8 
file a copy of his brief with appellee. 
9 
 
Lewis Thomas III, pro se. 
10 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Stuart A. Cole, Assistant 
11 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
12 
 
Per Curiam.  Whether the evidence conforms to the indictment is not a 
13 
jurisdictional issue as contended by petitioner-appellant.  However, habeas 
14 
corpus relief may be granted for nonjurisdictional claims, if the petitioner has 
15 
no adequate remedy at law.  State ex rel. Pirman v. Money (1993), 69 Ohio 
16 
St. 3d 591, 593, 635 N.E.2d 26.  Issues involving the relationship of the 
17 
indictment to the evidence may clearly be appealed.  See State v. O’Brien 
18 
 
3
(1987), 30 Ohio St. 3d 122, 30 OBR 436, 508 N.E.2d 144.  Thus, petitioner 
1 
in this case had an adequate remedy at law. 
2 
 
Accordingly, we overrule the motion to strike or dismiss and affirm the 
3 
judgment of the court of appeals. 
4 
Judgment affirmed. 
5 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and 
6 
COOK, JJ., concur. 
7 
 
8