Title: Payne v. Jeffreys

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Payne v. Jeffreys, 109 Ohio St.3d 239, 2006-Ohio-2288.] 
 
 
PAYNE, APPELLANT, v. JEFFREYS, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Payne v. Jeffreys, 109 Ohio St.3d 239, 2006-Ohio-2288.] 
Appeal from dismissal of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — Habeas corpus 
is not available to challenge the validity or sufficiency of an indictment — 
Judgment affirmed. 
(No. 2005-1915 — Submitted April 11, 2006 — Decided May 24, 2006.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Marion County, No. 9-05-27. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing a petition for a writ 
of habeas corpus. 
{¶ 2} In July 2005, appellant, inmate Sir Lawrence E. Payne, filed a 
petition in the Court of Appeals for Marion County for a writ of habeas corpus to 
compel appellee, his warden, Rob Jeffreys, to release him from prison.  Payne 
claimed that he was entitled to the writ because his indictment violated R.C. 
2939.20 and thereby rendered the indictment “of no legal force.” 
{¶ 3} On September 8, 2005, the court of appeals dismissed the petition 
because “[h]abeas corpus is not available to challenge either the validity or the 
sufficiency of an indictment.” 
{¶ 4} In his appeal as of right, Payne asserts that the court of appeals 
erred in dismissing his petition.  He claims that habeas corpus is appropriate 
because his indictment violated R.C. 2939.20, which requires the foreman of the 
grand jury to “indorse on such indictment the words ‘A true bill’ and subscribe his 
name as foreman.”  We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
{¶ 5} Notwithstanding Payne’s assertions to the contrary, his claim 
attacks the validity and sufficiency of his indictment and should have been raised 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
on direct appeal of his criminal conviction and sentence rather than in habeas 
corpus.  See Thornton v. Russell (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 93, 94, 694 N.E.2d 464 
(claim that indictment was void because the grand-jury foreman did not manually 
endorse that the indictment was a true bill); Malone v. Lane, 96 Ohio St.3d 415, 
2002-Ohio-4908, 775 N.E.2d 527, ¶ 1, 4 (claims that there was no endorsement 
that the indictment was a true bill and that the grand jury did not certify the 
indictment). 
{¶ 6} Moreover, Payne’s indictment satisfied R.C. 2939.20, since the 
words “a true bill” were in a preprinted indictment form and the grand-jury 
foreman subscribed his name as foreman under that endorsement.  See Ruch v. 
State (1924), 111 Ohio St. 580, 585, 146 N.E. 67; Key v. State, Franklin App. No. 
04AP-113, 2004-Ohio-5341, 2004 WL 2898757, ¶ 7-10. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Sir Lawrence E. Payne, pro se. 
 
Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Diane Mallory, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellee. 
______________________