Title: State ex rel. Bragg v. Seidner

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Bragg v. Seidner, 92 Ohio St.3d 87, 2001-Ohio-152.] 
 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. BRAGG, APPELLANT, v. SEIDNER, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Bragg v. Seidner (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 87.] 
Habeas corpus sought to compel relator’s release from prison — Court of 
appeals’ denial of writ affirmed, when. 
(No. 01-217 — Submitted May 30, 2001 — Decided June 20, 2001.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lorain County, No. 95CA006239. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  In 1989, appellant, John T. Bragg, was convicted of two 
counts of aggravated murder, kidnapping, aggravated robbery, and various 
specifications, and was sentenced to prison.  On appeal, the court of appeals 
affirmed Bragg’s convictions and sentence.  State v. Bragg (June 27, 1991), 
Cuyahoga App. No. 58859, unreported, 1991 WL 127135. 
 
In September 1995, Bragg filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to 
compel his prison warden at the time, appellee Larry Seidner, to release him from 
custody.  Bragg claimed that his trial court lacked jurisdiction to try and sentence 
him when his indictment had been improperly amended to delete a death-penalty 
specification.  Seidner filed a motion to dismiss.  The court of appeals converted 
the motion to a motion for summary judgment, notified Bragg of the conversion, 
and gave him the opportunity to respond. 
 
In February 1996, Bragg filed a motion to amend his petition, in which he 
added a claim that the indictment was invalid because it contained no allegation 
that the offense was committed in some place within the territorial jurisdiction of 
the court.  In March 1996, the court of appeals granted summary judgment for 
Seidner and denied the writ.  The court of appeals also denied Bragg’s motion to 
amend. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Shortly thereafter, Bragg filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from the 
judgment in which he asserted the same claims in his petition and motion to 
amend his petition.  Bragg also requested an evidentiary hearing on his motion.  
Over four years later, in December 2000, the court of appeals, after discovering 
that Bragg’s motion was still pending due to an administrative oversight, denied 
the motion. 
 
In his appeal as of right, Bragg contends that the court of appeals erred in 
denying the motion. 
 
Bragg’s contention is meritless.  “A Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from 
judgment cannot be used as a substitute for a timely appeal * * *.”  Key v. 
Mitchell (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 89, 90-91, 689 N.E.2d 548, 549.  All of Bragg’s 
claims could have been raised in an appeal from the judgment denying the writ 
and the motion to amend. 
 
Furthermore, habeas corpus is not available to test the validity or 
sufficiency of an indictment or an amended indictment.  State ex rel. Raglin v. 
Brigano (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 410, 696 N.E.2d 585; Douglas v. Money (1999), 
85 Ohio St.3d 348, 349, 708 N.E.2d 697, 698. 
 
Finally, the indictments attached to Bragg’s habeas corpus petition in this 
case specified that the offenses occurred in Cuyahoga County, i.e., Bragg’s trial 
court had territorial jurisdiction in his case. 
 
Based on the foregoing, Bragg’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from 
judgment did not allege operative facts to warrant relief from judgment, and the 
court of appeals did not abuse its broad discretion in denying his motion without 
holding an evidentiary hearing.  See State ex rel. Richard v. Seidner (1996), 76 
Ohio St.3d 149, 152, 666 N.E.2d 1134, 1137.  Accordingly, we affirm the 
judgment of the court of appeals. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
January Term, 2001 
3 
Judgment affirmed. 
__________________ 
 
John T. Bragg, pro se. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, Ellen H. Weston and Michael L. 
Collyer, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee. 
__________________