[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 

ex rel. Rackley v. Sloan, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-3416.] 

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. 2016-OHIO-3416

THE STATE EX REL. RACKLEY, APPELLANT, v. SLOAN, WARDEN, APPELLEE.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as State ex rel. Rackley v. Sloan, Slip Opinion No. 

2016-Ohio-3416.] 

Habeas corpus—Claims for which appellant seeks relief are not cognizable in 

habeas corpus, and he possessed an adequate remedy at law to assert 

them—Court of appeals’ dismissal of petition for writ affirmed. 

(No. 2015-1364—Submitted February 23, 2016—Decided June 16, 2016.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Ashtabula County, 

No. 2015-A-0021, 2015-Ohio-2984. 

________________ 

 Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} Appellant, Steven L. Rackley, appeals from the judgment of the 

Eleventh District Court of Appeals dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus. Because he has, and has used, alternative remedies at law to raise his habeas 

claims, we affirm. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

Relevant Background 

{¶ 2} In April 2013, Rackley pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter 

and aggravated robbery and the trial court sentenced him to 19 years in prison. 

State v. Rackley, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102962, 2015-Ohio-4504. He is currently 

serving his prison sentence at the Lake Erie Correctional Institution. 

{¶ 3} In March 2015, Rackley filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in 

the Eleventh District Court of Appeals. He argued that he did not receive adequate 

notice of the charges against him, the municipal court failed to advise him of his 

constitutional rights, no proper arrest warrant had been issued and his case was 

improperly bound over to the common pleas court, and his indictment was 

improperly amended. He further claimed that he was deprived of his right to 

counsel at the indictment stage, his guilty plea was involuntary and not supported 

by sufficient evidence, a written plea agreement was never executed, his right to a 

speedy trial was violated, and his trial attorney was ineffective for various failures. 

The court of appeals dismissed the petition because he had an adequate remedy “in 

the form of an appeal and a postconviction motion for relief to raise such alleged 

errors.” 2015-Ohio-2984, ¶ 7. 

{¶ 4} In this appeal of right, Rackley challenges the appellate court’s 

judgment and reasserts his habeas claims. He also requests that this court hold an 

evidentiary hearing on his claims and has filed a motion requesting that this court 

suspend bail and the execution of his sentence. In addition to responding to 

Rackley’s substantive claims, appellee, Warden Brigham Sloan, argues that we 

should order Rackley to pay any filing fees associated with this appeal. 

Analysis

{¶ 5} We affirm the appellate court’s judgment dismissing Rackley’s 

habeas petition. The claims for which he seeks relief are not cognizable in habeas 

corpus, and he possessed an alternative remedy at law to assert those claims. 
January Term, 2016 

3

{¶ 6} Habeas corpus is not available to challenge any defect “ ‘caused by 

the alleged failure to file criminal complaints or the claimed impropriety of the 

[trial] court’s assumption of jurisdiction over [criminal] charges.’ ” Harris v. 

Bagley, 97 Ohio St.3d 98, 2002-Ohio-5369, 776 N.E.2d 490, ¶ 3, quoting Taylor v. 

Mitchell, 88 Ohio St.3d 453, 454, 727 N.E.2d 905 (2000). “ ‘The manner by which 

an accused is charged with a crime is procedural rather than jurisdictional, and after 

a conviction for crimes charged in an indictment, the judgment binds the defendant 

for the crime for which he was convicted.’ ” State ex rel. Nelson v. Griffin, 103 

Ohio St.3d 167, 2004-Ohio-4754, 814 N.E.2d 866, ¶ 6, quoting Orr v. Mack, 83 

Ohio St.3d 429, 430, 700 N.E.2d 590 (1998). An illegal arrest “does not affect the 

validity of subsequent proceedings based on a valid indictment nor furnish [a] 

ground for release by habeas corpus after conviction.” Krauter v. Maxwell, 3 Ohio 

St.2d 142, 144, 209 N.E.2d 571 (1965). 

{¶ 7} Rackley was charged in an indictment issued by the Cuyahoga County 

Grand Jury, and he pleaded guilty and was ultimately sentenced on that indictment. 

State v. Rackley, 2015-Ohio-4504, ¶ 3-4. Therefore, the trial court possessed the 

requisite jurisdiction to accept his guilty pleas and sentence him to prison. See R.C. 

2931.03. 

{¶ 8} In addition, habeas corpus will not lie for claims challenging the 

sufficiency of the evidence, State ex rel. Tarr v. Williams, 112 Ohio St.3d 51, 2006-

Ohio-6368, 857 N.E.2d 1225, ¶ 4, or for claims challenging the validity of a guilty 

plea, Pollock v. Morris, 35 Ohio St.3d 117, 518 N.E.2d 1205 (1988). Rackley 

alleges many deficiencies and failures on the part of his trial counsel and also 

alleges that the trial court denied his right to counsel at the indictment stage, but 

“[c]laims involving the ineffective assistance of counsel or the alleged denial of the 

right to counsel are not cognizable in habeas corpus,” Bozsik v. Hudson, 110 Ohio 

St.3d 245, 2006-Ohio-4356, 852 N.E.2d 1200, ¶ 7. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

{¶ 9} Habeas corpus is also not available to challenge the validity or 

sufficiency of an indictment, as such a claim is “nonjurisdictional in nature, and 

should [be] raised in an appeal of [a] criminal conviction rather than in habeas 

corpus.” State ex rel. Raglin v. Brigano, 82 Ohio St.3d 410, 696 N.E.2d 585 (1998). 

The initial indictment charged Rackley with aggravated murder, and he entered a 

guilty plea to a reduced charge of involuntary manslaughter, State v. Rackley at 

¶ 3-4, which is a lesser-included offense, State v. Thomas, 40 Ohio St.3d 213, 533 

N.E.2d 286 (1988), paragraph one of the syllabus. “An accused can properly plead 

guilty to a lesser included offense of the charge for which he was indicted, and 

habeas corpus will not lie to challenge a conviction on this plea.” Gunnell v. 

Lazaroff, 90 Ohio St.3d 76, 77, 734 N.E.2d 829 (2000). And finally, “[a] claimed 

violation of a criminal defendant’s right to a speedy trial is not cognizable in habeas 

corpus.” Travis v. Bagley, 92 Ohio St.3d 322, 323, 750 N.E.2d 166 (2001). 

{¶ 10} Moreover, the court of appeals correctly determined that Rackley 

has or had an adequate remedy at law in the form of direct appeal and 

postconviction relief to raise his alleged trial-level errors. 2015-Ohio-2984, at ¶ 7. 

Rackley has acknowledged that since his convictions, he has filed “a delayed appeal 

in the Eighth District Court of Appeals; an App.R. 26(A) motion for reconsideration 

in the Eighth District Court of Appeals; an appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio; 

and a petition for postconviction relief in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common 

Pleas.” Id. at ¶ 4. The availability of alternative remedies at law, even if those 

remedies were not sought or were unsuccessful, precludes a writ of habeas corpus. 

State ex rel. O’Neal v. Bunting, 140 Ohio St.3d 339, 2014-Ohio-4037, 18 N.E.3d 

430, ¶ 15. 

{¶ 11} Finally, since Rackley filed a notarized affidavit of indigence 

contemporaneously with his notice of appeal to this court, pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 

3.06, his indigence is a matter of record and we will not tax the costs of this appeal 

to him. 
January Term, 2016 

5

{¶ 12} For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the court of 

appeals. We also deny as moot Rackley’s amended motion for an evidentiary 

hearing and his motion to suspend bail and the execution of his sentence. 

Judgment affirmed. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY,

FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 

_________________ 

Steven L. Rackley, pro se. 

Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Jerri L. Fosnaught, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee. 

_________________