Title: Everett v. Eberlin

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Everett v. Eberlin, 114 Ohio St.3d 199, 2007-Ohio-3832.] 
 
 
EVERETT, APPELLANT, v. EBERLIN, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Everett v. Eberlin, 114 Ohio St.3d 199, 2007-Ohio-3832.] 
Appeal from dismissal of petition for a writ of habeas corpus — Adequate remedy 
at law available — Judgment affirmed. 
(No. 2007-0462 — Submitted July 10, 2007 — Decided August 15, 2007.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Belmont County, 
No. 06 BE 65, 2007-Ohio-1119. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing a petition for a writ 
of habeas corpus.  Because the petition fails to state a viable habeas corpus claim, 
we affirm. 
{¶ 2} In May 2006, the Stark County Court of Common Pleas convicted 
appellant, Damion Montclair Everett, of possession of cocaine and trafficking in 
cocaine and sentenced him to an aggregate prison term of five years.  Instead of 
appealing his convictions and sentence, Everett filed in the Supreme Court of 
Ohio a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which we dismissed.  Everett v. 
Eberlin, 110 Ohio St.3d 1435, 2006-Ohio-3862, 852 N.E.2d 185.  In his petition, 
Eberlin challenged an alleged warrantless search that had led to his convictions. 
{¶ 3} Everett next filed a petition in the Stark County Court of Common 
Pleas for postconviction relief.  Everett again contested the alleged warrantless 
search and added a claim of ineffective assistance of his trial counsel.  The 
common pleas court dismissed the petition. 
{¶ 4} In December 2006, rather than appealing from the common pleas 
court’s dismissal of his postconviction-relief petition, Everett filed a petition in 
the Court of Appeals for Belmont County for a writ of mandamus to compel his 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
immediate release from prison, an evidentiary hearing on his claims, and an order 
for his prison’s records office to produce his file for inspection at the hearing.  
Appellee, Belmont Correctional Institution Warden Michele Eberlin, filed a 
motion to dismiss the petition.  The court of appeals granted the warden’s motion 
and dismissed the petition. 
{¶ 5} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the following 
reasons. 
{¶ 6} “Like other extraordinary-writ actions, habeas corpus is not 
available when there is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.”  In re 
Complaint for Writ of Habeas Corpus for Goeller, 103 Ohio St.3d 427, 2004-
Ohio-5579, 816 N.E.2d 594, ¶ 6.  As the court of appeals correctly concluded, 
Everett had adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law by way of a motion 
to suppress, an appeal, and postconviction relief to raise his underlying claims of 
illegal search and ineffective assistance of counsel.  These claims are not 
cognizable in habeas corpus.  See Valentine v. Maxwell (1965), 2 Ohio St.2d 146, 
31 O.O.2d 237, 207 N.E.2d 234 (illegal search); Bozsik v. Hudson, 110 Ohio 
St.3d 245, 2006-Ohio-4356, 852 N.E.2d 1200, ¶ 7 (ineffective assistance of 
counsel).  The mere fact that Everett has already unsuccessfully invoked some of 
these alternate remedies does not thereby entitle him to the requested 
extraordinary relief in habeas corpus.  Drake v. Tyson-Parker, 101 Ohio St.3d 
210, 2004-Ohio-711, 803 N.E.2d 811, ¶ 5. 
{¶ 7} The alternate remedy of appeal from the common pleas court’s 
dismissal of his petition for postconviction relief was also not rendered inadequate 
by the alleged failure of his prison to provide certain records.  As the common 
pleas court observed in its judgment dismissing the postconviction-relief petition, 
Everett had “other methods of obtaining evidence in support of his contention,” 
and res judicata barred him from raising this claim.  Everett could have 
January Term, 2007 
3 
challenged this determination in an appeal from the common pleas court’s 
judgment. 
{¶ 8} Finally, in an affidavit attached to his petition in the court of 
appeals, Everett asserted that his previous habeas corpus action in this court was 
based upon the “same set of circumstances.”  Having filed this previous petition, 
Everett is barred by res judicata from filing a successive habeas corpus petition.  
Wooton v. Brunsman, 112 Ohio St.3d 153, 2006-Ohio-6524, 858 N.E.2d 413, ¶ 6. 
{¶ 9} Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of 
appeals dismissing Everett’s habeas corpus petition. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Damion M. Everett, pro se. 
 
Marc Dann, Attorney General, and M. Scott Criss, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellee. 
______________________