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

ex rel. Sands v. Bunting, Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-5697.] 

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-5697

THE STATE EX REL. SANDS, APPELLANT, v. BUNTING, WARDEN, APPELLEE.

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

may be cited as State ex rel. Sands v. Bunting, Slip Opinion No. 

2017-Ohio-5697.] 

Habeas corpus—Judgment of dismissal affirmed—Alleged defects in indictment 

and sentencing errors not cognizable in habeas corpus. 

(No. 2016-1056—Submitted May 2, 2017—Decided July 6, 2017.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Marion County, 

No. 9-16-16. 

________________ 

 Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the Third District Court of Appeals 

dismissing the petition of appellant, Joseph A. Sands, for a writ of habeas corpus. 

{¶ 2} In 2006, Sands was convicted in the Lake County Court of Common 

Pleas of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity and conspiracy for his role in 

plotting to kill several local officials. He was sentenced to a total of 20 years in 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

prison. Sands contends that his conviction and sentence for engaging in a pattern 

of corrupt activity are void because the indictment alleged “only a single incident 

of corrupt activity, and fail[ed] to set out sufficient allegations to constitute a full 

and valid * * * charge [for engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity].” Sands 

argues that the alleged defect in his indictment deprived the trial court of 

jurisdiction to convict and sentence him for that charge. He claims that he has 

completed his sentence for the conspiracy charge and that he is therefore entitled to 

immediate release. The court of appeals granted the motion of appellee, Marion 

Correctional Institution Warden Jason Bunting, to dismiss the petition. 

Required Affidavit of Prior Actions―R.C. 2969.25(A) 

{¶ 3} Sands failed to attach to his petition an affidavit setting forth “a 

description of each civil action or appeal of a civil action” that he has filed in the 

previous five years in any state or federal court, as required by R.C. 2969.25(A). 

Sands’s failure to file a complying affidavit warrants dismissal of his petition for a 

writ of habeas corpus. Robinson v. LaRose, 147 Ohio St.3d 473, 2016-Ohio-7647, 

67 N.E.3d 765, ¶ 11. 

Sands’s claims are not cognizable in habeas corpus

{¶ 4} Even if Sands’s habeas claims were properly before us, we would still 

affirm the court of appeals’ judgment dismissing his petition. In his merit brief, 

Sands raises various challenges to the indictment and to his conviction and sentence 

for engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity. However, as the court of appeals 

correctly pointed out, challenges to the validity or sufficiency of an indictment are 

not cognizable in habeas corpus. “ ‘Habeas corpus is not available to challenge the 

validity of a charging instrument.’ ” State ex rel. Arroyo v. Sloan, 142 Ohio St.3d 

541, 2015-Ohio-2081, 33 N.E.3d 56, ¶ 5, quoting McGee v. Sheldon, 132 Ohio 

St.3d 89, 2012-Ohio-2217, 969 N.E.2d 262, ¶ 1; Luna v. Russell, 70 Ohio St.3d 

561, 562, 639 N.E.2d 1168 (1994). Moreover, sentencing errors are not 

jurisdictional and thus are not cognizable in habeas corpus. Dunkle v. Dept. of 
January Term, 2017 

3

Rehab. & Corr., 148 Ohio St.3d 621, 2017-Ohio-551, 71 N.E.3d 1098, ¶ 8; Shie v. 

Smith, 123 Ohio St.3d 89, 2009-Ohio-4079, 914 N.E.2d 369, ¶ 2. 

{¶ 5} Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals 

dismissing Sands’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Further, we deny Sands’s 

request for oral argument and his motion to strike the appellee’s brief. 

Judgment affirmed. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, O’NEILL, FISCHER,

and DEWINE, JJ., concur. 

_________________ 

Michael A. Partlow, for appellant. 

Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Stephanie Watson, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee. 

_________________