Title: State ex rel. Thomas v. Money

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

THE STATE EX REL. THOMAS, APPELLANT, V. MONEY, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Thomas v. Money (1997), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Habeas corpus not available to challenge either sentencing errors or the validity 
or sufficiency of an indictment — Habeas corpus not available when 
petitioner has adequate remedy at law by way of appeal. 
 
(No. 97-1463 — Submitted December 3, 1997 — Decided December 31, 
1997.) 
 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Marion County, No. 9-97-32. 
 
In 1989, appellant, Ralph Thomas, was convicted of several offenses, 
including theft, and was sentenced accordingly.  In 1997, Thomas filed a petition 
in the Court of Appeals for Marion County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel 
his immediate release from prison.  Thomas claimed that the sentence for his theft 
conviction was unlawful and that his indictments were invalid because they did 
not contain a theft charge.  Thomas subsequently moved for leave to amend his 
petition to add a claim that he was not present when sentenced by the trial court.  
The court of appeals granted Thomas’s motion but dismissed the petition, as 
amended. 
 
The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. 
__________________ 
 
Ralph Thomas, pro se. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Donald Gary Keyser, 
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Thomas asserts in his propositions of law that the court of 
appeals erred by dismissing his habeas corpus petition.  Thomas contends that the 
 
2
sentence for his theft conviction is void based on the claims he raised in the court 
of appeals. 
 
The court of appeals, however, correctly dismissed the petition.  Habeas 
corpus is not available to challenge either sentencing errors or the validity or 
sufficiency of an indictment.  State ex rel. Massie v. Rogers (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 
449, 449-450, 674 N.E.2d 1383; Smith v. Seidner (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 172, 173, 
677 N.E.2d 336.  These claims can be raised on direct appeal.  Massie and Smith.  
Similarly, Thomas had an adequate remedy by appeal to raise his remaining claim 
that he was not present at his sentencing.  See, e.g., State v. Welch (1978), 53 Ohio 
St.2d 47, 7 O.O.3d 128, 372 N.E.2d 346. 
 
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.