[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. 

_________________