Title: Boylen v. Bradshaw

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Boylen v. Bradshaw, 108 Ohio St.3d 181, 2006-Ohio-549.] 
 
 
BOYLEN, APPELLANT, v. BRADSHAW, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Boylen v. Bradshaw, 108 Ohio St.3d 181, 2006-Ohio-549.] 
Habeas corpus — Preindictment irregularities not cognizable in habeas corpus. 
(No. 2005-1612 ─ Submitted January 11, 2006 ─ Decided February 22, 2006.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Stark County, No. 2005CA00185. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, Adam Douglas Boylen, was indicted on 17 counts of 
aggravated robbery and one count of grand theft of a motor vehicle.  On July 29, 
2003, the Stark County Court of Common Pleas convicted Boylen upon his guilty 
pleas to the charged offenses and sentenced him to an aggregate prison sentence 
of 13 years.  On appeal, the Court of Appeals for Stark County affirmed.  State v. 
Boylen, Stark App. Nos. 2003CA00304 and 2003CA00305, 2004-Ohio-1283, 
2004 WL 540235, appeal not accepted, 103 Ohio St.3d 1405, 2004-Ohio-3980, 
812 N.E.2d 1288. 
{¶ 2} In June 2005, Boylen moved to vacate the July 2003 judgments of 
conviction and sentence in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas.  Boylen 
claimed that his convictions and sentence were void because of fraudulent 
preindictment proceedings in municipal court. 
{¶ 3} In July 2005, as an inmate at Mansfield Correctional Institution in 
Richland County, Ohio, Boylen filed a petition in the Fifth District Court of 
Appeals for a writ of habeas corpus to compel appellee, his prison warden, to 
release him from prison.  Boylen again contended that defects in his municipal 
court proceedings divested his trial court of jurisdiction to convict and sentence 
him.  On August 5, 2005, the court of appeals dismissed his petition. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 4} In his appeal as of right, Boylen claims that the court of appeals 
erred in dismissing his habeas corpus petition.  For the following reasons, the 
court of appeals properly dismissed the petition. 
{¶ 5} First, “ ‘[a]ny defect caused by the alleged failure to file criminal 
complaints or the claimed impropriety of the municipal court’s assumption of 
jurisdiction over [criminal] charges is not cognizable in habeas corpus.’ ”  Harris 
v. Bagley, 97 Ohio St.3d 98, 2002-Ohio-5369, 776 N.E.2d 490, ¶ 3, quoting 
Taylor v. Mitchell (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 453, 454, 727 N.E.2d 905.  Boylen was 
convicted and sentenced upon indictments, and his trial court had the requisite 
jurisdiction to try, convict, and sentence him upon the charged offenses.  Id.; see, 
also, Johnson v. Bobby, 103 Ohio St.3d 96, 2004-Ohio-4438, 814 N.E.2d 61, ¶ 5. 
{¶ 6} Second, “ ‘[t]he manner by which an accused is charged with a 
crime is procedural rather than jurisdictional, and after a conviction for crimes 
charged in an indictment, the judgment binds the defendant for the crime for 
which he was convicted.’ ”  State ex rel. Nelson v. Griffin, 103 Ohio St.3d 167, 
2004-Ohio-4754, 814 N.E.2d 866, ¶ 6, quoting Orr v. Mack (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 
429, 430, 700 N.E.2d 590. 
{¶ 7} Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of 
appeals dismissing Boylen’s petition. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Adam Douglas Boylen, pro se. 
 
Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Mark J. Zemba, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellee. 
______________________