Title: State ex rel. Whitt v. Harris

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. Whitt v. Harris, Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-4113.] 
 
 
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. 2019-OHIO-4113 
THE STATE EX REL. WHITT, APPELLANT, v. HARRIS, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as State ex rel. Whitt v. Harris,  
Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-4113.] 
Habeas corpus—Claims arguing lack of jurisdiction barred by res judicata—
Failure to prove venue not cognizable in habeas corpus—Habeas corpus 
not available to challenge sufficiency of the evidence—Court of appeals’ 
denial of writ affirmed. 
(No. 2019-0121—Submitted June 11, 2019—Decided October 8, 2019.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Warren County, No. CA2018-09-112. 
________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, Stephen H. Whitt, appeals the decision of the Twelfth 
District Court of Appeals denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus against 
Chae Harris, warden of the Lebanon Correctional Institution.  We affirm. 
Background 
{¶ 2} In 2009, a Coshocton County grand jury issued a four-count 
indictment against Whitt for the alleged rape and sexual battery of his wife’s 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
granddaughter.  Count one charged him with the rape of a victim under the age of 
13, in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b).  Count two charged him with a separate 
rape “by force or threat of force,” in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2).  And counts 
three and four alleged sexual battery. 
{¶ 3} Whitt was found guilty on all counts after a bench trial.  The court of 
appeals affirmed his convictions but remanded for a new sentencing hearing.  State 
v. Whitt, 5th Dist. Coshocton No. 10-CA-10, 2011-Ohio-3022, ¶ 88, appeal not 
accepted, 130 Ohio St.3d 1417, 2011-Ohio-5605, 956 N.E.2d 309.  On remand, the 
trial court merged the sexual-battery counts with the rape counts before 
resentencing Whitt, and the court of appeals affirmed.  State v. Whitt, 5th Dist. 
Coshocton No. 12-CA-3, 2012-Ohio-3094, ¶ 4, 24. 
{¶ 4} On September 7, 2018, Whitt filed a petition for a writ of habeas 
corpus in the Twelfth District Court of Appeals, alleging that his convictions were 
void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.  According to Whitt, the evidence at 
trial showed that the count-one rape occurred in Sunbury, Ohio (Delaware County), 
the count-two rape happened in Pennsylvania, the location of the sexual battery 
alleged in count three was never established, and the count-four sexual battery 
occurred in either Tennessee or Kentucky.  Whitt argues that because none of the 
crimes occurred in Coshocton County, the common pleas court lacked jurisdiction 
to convict him, therefore entitling him to a writ of habeas corpus compelling his 
immediate release. 
{¶ 5} Warden Harris filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court 
of appeals granted.  The court of appeals determined that Whitt’s claims were 
barred by res judicata and denied the writ on that basis.  Whitt appealed. 
Analysis 
{¶ 6} To be entitled to a writ of habeas corpus, a petitioner must show that 
he is being unlawfully restrained of his liberty and that he is entitled to immediate 
release from prison or confinement.  R.C. 2725.01; State ex rel. Cannon, 155 Ohio 
January Term, 2019 
3 
 
St.3d 213, 2018-Ohio-4184, 120 N.E.3d 776, ¶ 10.  “[H]abeas corpus is generally 
available only when the petitioner’s maximum sentence has expired and he is being 
held unlawfully.”  Heddleston v. Mack, 84 Ohio St.3d 213, 214, 702 N.E.2d 1198 
(1998).  As is true for every extraordinary writ, habeas corpus is not available when 
there is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.  Billiter v. Banks, 135 
Ohio St.3d 426, 2013-Ohio-1719, 988 N.E.2d 556, ¶ 8.  “However, there is a 
limited exception to the adequate-remedy requirement: ‘when a court’s judgment 
is void because it lacked jurisdiction, habeas is still an appropriate remedy despite 
the availability of appeal.’ ”  Leyman v. Bradshaw, 146 Ohio St.3d 522, 2016-Ohio-
1093, 59 N.E.3d 1236, ¶ 9, quoting Gaskins v. Shiplevy, 74 Ohio St.3d 149, 151, 
656 N.E.2d 1282 (1995).  We review a summary-judgment decision denying a writ 
of habeas corpus de novo.  See State ex rel. Shafer v. Wainwright, 156 Ohio St.3d 
559, 2019-Ohio-1828, 130 N.E.3d 268, ¶ 7. 
{¶ 7} According to Whitt, he was convicted of count two, rape “by force or 
threat of force” under R.C. 2907.02(A)(2), based on conduct that occurred entirely 
in Pennsylvania.  This claim is barred by res judicata. 
{¶ 8} In the direct appeal of his convictions, Whitt’s first assignment of 
error was that “the trial court lacked statutory jurisdiction under R.C. 2901.11 to 
consider the second and fourth incidents as the alleged sexual conduct occurred 
outside the state of Ohio.”  Whitt, 2011-Ohio-3022, at ¶ 17, 23.  The court of appeals 
rejected this argument on the merits.  Id. at ¶ 38.  Whitt then sought discretionary 
review in this court, and the central issue he raised in his unsuccessful petition was 
the trial court’s alleged lack of jurisdiction over a rape committed outside Ohio.  
See memorandum in support of jurisdiction in State v. Whitt, case No. 2011-1236. 
{¶ 9} A petitioner “may not use habeas corpus to gain successive appellate 
reviews of the same issue.”  State ex rel. Rash v. Jackson, 102 Ohio St.3d 145, 
2004-Ohio-2053, 807 N.E.2d 344, ¶ 12 (holding that prisoner could not raise in 
habeas corpus a claim already raised in his direct appeal).  Because Whitt 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
challenged the trial court’s jurisdiction to convict him on the forcible-rape charge 
in his direct appeal, his habeas claim based on the same theory is barred by res 
judicata.  See Wells v. Hudson, 113 Ohio St.3d 308, 2007-Ohio-1955, 865 N.E.2d 
46, ¶ 7. 
{¶ 10} Whitt’s argument concerning count one is a challenge to venue, not 
jurisdiction.  He concedes that the conduct charged in count one occurred in Ohio.  
He claims a right to have his trial occur in the county where the alleged crime 
occurred (Delaware County) and concludes that it was error to try him in Coshocton 
County.  Venue is not a jurisdictional element of a criminal offense.  State v. 
Crawford, 5th Dist. Richland No. 18CA79, 2019-Ohio-273, ¶ 17.  A criminal 
defendant who fails to object to venue at trial waives all but plain error.  State v. 
Jackson, 141 Ohio St.3d 171, 2014-Ohio-3707, 23 N.E.3d 1023, ¶ 142.  And 
because failure to prove venue must be raised on direct appeal, the issue is not 
cognizable in habeas corpus.  Cook v. Maxwell, 2 Ohio St.2d 107, 108-109, 206 
N.E.2d 558 (1965).  Thus, Whitt’s challenge to his count-one conviction on the 
basis of venue is barred by res judicata. 
{¶ 11} Finally, Whitt challenges the trial court’s jurisdiction to convict him 
of sexual battery under count three (location unknown) and count four (Tennessee 
or Kentucky).  The gravamen of his argument regarding count three is that the state 
failed to prove that the conduct occurred in Ohio, which appears to be a challenge 
to the sufficiency of the evidence.  Habeas corpus is not available to challenge the 
sufficiency of the evidence.  State ex rel. Tarr v. Williams, 112 Ohio St.3d 51, 2006-
Ohio-6368, 857 N.E.2d 1225, ¶ 4.  And res judicata bars his jurisdictional challenge 
to count four because it was part of his direct appeal. 
{¶ 12} Moreover, even if Whitt’s jurisdictional challenges to counts three 
and four had merit, he would not be entitled to habeas corpus relief.  “[H]abeas 
corpus lies only if the petitioner is entitled to immediate release from confinement.”  
State ex rel. Jackson v. McFaul, 73 Ohio St.3d 185, 188, 652 N.E.2d 746 (1995).  
January Term, 2019 
5 
 
Whitt’s rape convictions (counts one and two) included a maximum term of life in 
prison, which he has not fully served.  See Brooks v. Kelly, 144 Ohio St.3d 322, 
2015-Ohio-2805, 43 N.E.3d 385, ¶ 9 (inmate who “has not served his maximum 
term of life” is not entitled to habeas relief).  Thus, vacating the sexual battery 
convictions, which were merged into his rape convictions for sentencing, would not 
result in his release from prison. 
{¶ 13} For these reasons, the court of appeals correctly denied the writ of 
habeas corpus. 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, 
and STEWART, JJ., concur. 
_________________________ 
Stephen H. Whitt, pro se. 
Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Mary Anne Reese, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellee. 
_________________________