Title: Patrick v. Bunting

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Patrick v. Bunting, Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-6954.] 
 
 
 
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. 2017-OHIO-6954 
PATRICK, APPELLANT, v. BUNTING, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Patrick v. Bunting, Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-6954.] 
Habeas corpus—Writ of habeas corpus is not the proper means through which to 
challenge a complaint or indictment or to raise claims related to arrest—
Petitioner had adequate remedy at law—Court of appeals’ denial of writ 
affirmed. 
(No. 2016-1375—Submitted May 16, 2017—Decided July 27, 2017.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Marion County, 
No. 9-16-31. 
________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the Third District Court of Appeals 
dismissing the petition of appellant, Alonzo Raymont Patrick, for a writ of habeas 
corpus. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
{¶ 2} In 2011, Patrick pleaded guilty to charges of aggravated burglary with 
a firearm specification, abduction, and having a weapon while under a disability.  
He was convicted and sentenced to seven years of imprisonment, with his 
maximum sentence expiring in March 2018.  Patrick is currently confined at the 
Marion Correctional Institution. 
{¶ 3} In 2016, Patrick filed a habeas corpus petition in the Third District 
Court of Appeals, requesting immediate release from prison.  He asserted that the 
common pleas court lacked jurisdiction over his 2011 indictment due to alleged 
problems related to the charging complaint and his arrest. 
{¶ 4} Respondent, Jason Bunting, the warden of the Marion Correctional 
Institution, filed a motion to dismiss.  The Third District Court of Appeals granted 
the motion for two reasons: Patrick failed to submit an affidavit describing his prior 
civil actions, as required under R.C. 2969.25(A), and his claims were not 
cognizable in habeas corpus. 
{¶ 5} “Habeas corpus will lie only to challenge the jurisdiction of the 
sentencing court.  R.C. 2725.05.  The few situations in which habeas corpus may 
lie to correct a nonjurisdictional error are those in which there is no adequate 
remedy at law.”  Appenzeller v. Miller, 136 Ohio St.3d 378, 2013-Ohio-3719, 996 
N.E.2d 919, ¶ 9. 
{¶ 6} On appeal, Patrick argues that the trial court lacked both personal and 
subject-matter jurisdiction over his 2011 criminal case due to various alleged 
problems with the charging complaint as well as his subsequent arrest and 
confinement.  His main objection seems to be that the complaint, which states that 
it was sworn on March 3, 2011, alleges misconduct occurring on March 31, 2011.  
As a result, he says, the trial court violated his constitutional due-process rights. 
{¶ 7} The timing discrepancy on the complaint is puzzling, but it is 
ultimately irrelevant.  Habeas corpus is neither available to challenge a complaint 
or indictment, see Harris v. Bagley, 97 Ohio St.3d 98, 2002-Ohio-5369, 776 N.E.2d 
January Term, 2017 
 
3
490, ¶ 1-3, nor  the appropriate vehicle to raise claims related to arrest, see Simpson 
v. Maxwell, 1 Ohio St.2d 71, 203 N.E.2d 324 (1964).  Patrick had an adequate 
remedy in the ordinary course of the law to raise his claims, and indeed he pursued 
similar arguments on appeal.  See brief of appellant, filed in State v. Patrick, 8th 
Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102386, on Feb. 13, 2015. 
{¶ 8} Patrick also challenges the court of appeals’ decision to dismiss his 
petition for noncompliance with the affidavit requirement set forth in R.C. 
2969.25(A).  But because Patrick’s claims are not cognizable in habeas corpus, the 
question of his compliance with R.C. 2969.25(A) is of no moment. 
{¶ 9} For the reasons above, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals 
dismissing Patrick’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, O’NEILL, and 
DEWINE, JJ., concur. 
FISCHER, J., not participating. 
_________________ 
Alonzo Raymont Patrick, pro se. 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and M. Scott Criss, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellee. 
_________________