Title: McCuller v. Hudson

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as McCuller v. Hudson, 121 Ohio St.3d 168, 2009-Ohio-721.] 
 
 
MCCULLER, APPELLANT, v. HUDSON, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as McCuller v. Hudson, 121 Ohio St.3d 168, 2009-Ohio-721.] 
Habeas corpus not available to challenge validity of charging instrument. 
(No. 2008-1986 — Submitted February 18, 2009 — Decided February 24, 2009.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Richland County, 
No. 08-CA-59, 2008-Ohio-4659. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the 
petition of appellant, Charles McCuller, for a writ of habeas corpus.  Even 
assuming that the court of appeals erred in denying McCuller’s motion to amend 
his petition as moot, the court of appeals correctly dismissed the petition.  A 
reviewing court will not reverse a correct judgment even if the lower court’s 
reasons were erroneous.  Goudlock v. Voorhies, 119 Ohio St.3d 398, 2008-Ohio-
4787, 894 N.E.2d 692, ¶ 12.  McCuller’s claims raised in his petition and his 
motion to amend the petition are not cognizable in habeas corpus.  Christian v. 
Gansheimer, 118 Ohio St.3d 235, 2008-Ohio-2219, 887 N.E.2d 1175, ¶ 5 (“An 
extraordinary writ is not available to challenge the validity or sufficiency of a 
charging instrument”); State v. Colon, 119 Ohio St.3d 204, 2008-Ohio-3749, 893 
N.E.2d 169, ¶ 5 (“the rule announced in Colon I is prospective in nature and 
applies only to those cases pending on the date when Colon I was announced”). 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Charles McCuller, pro se. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and M. Scott Criss, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
______________________