Title: Bell v. McConahay

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Bell 
v. McConahay, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-693.] 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 
advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested to 
promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 
South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 
formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 
the opinion is published. 
 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2023-OHIO-693 
BELL, APPELLANT, v. MCCONAHAY, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Bell v. McConahay, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-693.] 
Habeas corpus—Petitioner had adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law—
Motion to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) was properly granted—Court of 
appeals’ judgment dismissing petition affirmed. 
(No. 2022-0418—Submitted January 10, 2023—Decided March 9, 2023.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Richland County, No. 2022-CA-005. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, Michael D. Bell, appeals the Fifth District Court of 
Appeals’ dismissal of his petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus against appellee, 
Tim McConahay, warden of the Mansfield Correctional Institution (“MCI”).  Bell 
has also filed a motion to reverse and vacate the judgment against him based on 
McConahay’s alleged failure to timely file a merit brief in this appeal.  For the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2 
reasons that follow, we deny Bell’s motion and affirm the judgment of the court of 
appeals. 
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
{¶ 2} Bell is an inmate at MCI.  In 2012, a Hamilton County grand jury 
indicted him for murder, with a firearm specification, and for having weapons while 
under disability.  In October 2013, Bell pleaded guilty to reduced charges of 
voluntary manslaughter, with a firearm specification, and to having weapons while 
under disability.  The trial court sentenced Bell to 11 years in prison for voluntary 
manslaughter, 3 years for the firearm specification, and 3 years for having weapons 
while under disability.  The trial court ordered those sentences to be served 
consecutively, for an aggregate sentence of 17 years.  Bell did not file a direct 
appeal. 
{¶ 3} On January 14, 2022, Bell filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 
in the Fifth District Court of Appeals.  He presented several arguments to support 
his claim for relief. 
{¶ 4} McConahay filed a motion to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), which 
Bell opposed.  The court of appeals granted McConahay’s motion to dismiss, 
finding that Bell’s petition failed to state a valid claim for relief in habeas corpus. 
{¶ 5} Bell appeals to this court as of right. 
BELL’S MOTION TO REVERSE AND VACATE 
{¶ 6} Bell filed a motion to reverse and vacate the judgment and conviction 
against him based on McConahay’s alleged failure to timely file a brief in this 
appeal.  We deny that motion because McConahay timely filed his merit brief on 
July 11, 2022. 
ANALYSIS 
{¶ 7} This court reviews de novo a court of appeals’ Civ.R. 12(B)(6) 
dismissal of a habeas corpus petition.  State ex rel. Norris v. Wainwright, 158 Ohio 
St.3d 20, 2019-Ohio-4138, 139 N.E.3d 867, ¶ 5.  Dismissal is appropriate if it 
January Term, 2023 
 
3 
appears beyond doubt, after taking all factual allegations in the petition as true and 
making reasonable inferences in the petitioner’s favor, that the petitioner can prove 
no set of facts entitling him to a writ of habeas corpus.  Orr v. Schweitzer, 165 Ohio 
St.3d 175, 2021-Ohio-1786, 176 N.E.3d 738, ¶ 4. 
{¶ 8} Generally, a writ of habeas corpus is available only when a 
petitioner’s maximum sentence has expired and he is being held unlawfully, 
Leyman v. Bradshaw, 146 Ohio St.3d 522, 2016-Ohio-1093, 59 N.E.3d 1236, ¶ 8, 
or when the sentencing court patently and unambiguously lacked subject-matter 
jurisdiction, see Stever v. Wainwright, 160 Ohio St.3d 139, 2020-Ohio-1452, 154 
N.E.3d 55, ¶ 8.  The writ is not available when the petitioner has an adequate 
remedy in the ordinary course of law unless the trial court’s judgment is void for 
lack of jurisdiction.  State ex rel. Davis v. Turner, 164 Ohio St.3d 395, 2021-Ohio-
1771, 172 N.E.3d 1026, ¶ 8. 
{¶ 9} Bell does not assert that his maximum sentence has expired or that the 
trial court lacked jurisdiction.  Instead, his arguments can be summarized as 
follows: (1) he was not permitted to attend all proceedings in his criminal case in 
violation of Crim.R. 43, (2) his guilty plea was unknowing and coerced and the trial 
court failed to engage in a Crim.R. 11(C) plea colloquy, (3) the trial court breached 
his plea agreement by failing to make certain statutorily mandated findings at his 
sentencing hearing, and (4) he received ineffective assistance of counsel because 
his attorney failed to object to the trial court’s errors and failed to inform Bell that 
the state had no evidence to prove the charges against him.  Bell also asserts that as 
a result of these alleged defects in his case, his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth 
Amendments to the United States Constitution were violated. 
{¶ 10} Bell raises nonjurisdictional issues that could have rendered his 
sentence voidable if they had been properly raised on appeal.  Bell had adequate 
remedies at law to challenge the trial court’s alleged failure to conduct a proper 
Crim.R. 11(C) plea colloquy.  See State ex rel. Lusher v. Robinson, 5th Dist. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4 
Richland No. 15CA60, 2016-Ohio-1461, ¶ 6 (recognizing that the petitioner had 
the opportunity to contest the propriety of a plea colloquy during the plea hearing, 
in a direct appeal, or in a motion to withdraw his guilty plea).  And “the issue of 
whether [a petitioner] made an intelligent, knowing, and voluntary guilty plea is a 
matter to be resolved by motion to withdraw the guilty plea, direct appeal, or 
postconviction proceedings, rather than in habeas corpus.”  Douglas v. Money, 85 
Ohio St.3d 348, 349, 708 N.E.2d 697 (1999). 
{¶ 11} Similarly, Bell’s claims that the trial court violated Crim.R. 43 and 
failed to make statutorily mandated findings in support of its sentence are not 
jurisdictional and thus are not cognizable in habeas corpus.  See Wilson v. Hudson, 
127 Ohio St.3d 31, 2010-Ohio-4990, 936 N.E.2d 42, ¶ 1 (Crim.R. 43(A) violation 
does not support habeas claim); State ex rel. O’Neal v. Bunting, 140 Ohio St.3d 
339, 2014-Ohio-4037, 18 N.E.3d 430, ¶ 13-14 (sentencing errors are not 
jurisdictional and thus not cognizable in habeas corpus). 
{¶ 12} Bell’s claim that he was denied his constitutional rights to due 
process and effective assistance of counsel are likewise unavailing in this habeas 
action.  See Jackson v. Johnson, 135 Ohio St.3d 364, 2013-Ohio-999, 986 N.E.2d 
989, ¶ 3 (alleged due-process violation not cognizable in habeas corpus); Bozsik v. 
Hudson, 110 Ohio St.3d 245, 2006-Ohio-4356, 852 N.E.2d 1200, ¶ 7 (claim of 
ineffective assistance of counsel not cognizable in habeas corpus). 
{¶ 13} Bell maintains that he has no adequate remedy at law because no 
attorney would represent him or file an appeal on his behalf and his pro se filings 
have been unsuccessful.  The fact that a remedy may no longer be available to Bell, 
however, does not render it inadequate or entitle Bell to the extraordinary writ of 
habeas corpus.  See Jackson v. Wilson, 100 Ohio St.3d 315, 2003-Ohio-6112, 798 
N.E.2d 1086, ¶ 9 (“even if these other remedies are no longer available to [the 
habeas petitioner], he is not thereby entitled to an extraordinary writ”); State ex rel. 
January Term, 2023 
 
5 
Gaydosh v. Twinsburg, 93 Ohio St.3d 576, 579, 757 N.E.2d 357 (2001) (a 
petitioner’s “failure to timely pursue [remedies] does not render them inadequate”). 
CONCLUSION 
{¶ 14} Because Bell cannot establish that he is entitled to habeas relief 
under any of these theories, the court of appeals properly dismissed his petition.  
Accordingly, we deny Bell’s motion and affirm the judgment of the Fifth District 
Court of Appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER, 
and DETERS, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Michael Bell, pro se. 
Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Stephanie L. Watson, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellee. 
_________________