[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as Green v. Shoop , Slip Opinion No . 2020-Ohio-873.]

NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to f ormal revision before it is pu blished in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are reques ted to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohi o, 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.

S LIP O PINION N O . 2020-O HIO -873
G REEN , A PPELLANT , v . S HOOP , W ARDEN , A PPELLEE . [Until this opinion appears in t he Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as Green v. Shoop , Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-873.] Habeas corpus—Res judicata—Alleged failure of state to file criminal complaint not cognizable in habeas corpus bec ause defendant had been indicted—Res judicata bars successive habeas corpus petitions—Court of appeals’ judgment dismissing petition affirmed. (No. 2019-1052—Submitted Decembe r 10, 2019—Decided March 12, 20 20.)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Ross County,
No. 19CA3675.

___________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} Appellant, Danny M. Green, appeals the judgment of the Fourth District Court of Appeals dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus against appellee, Tim Shoop, warden of the Chillicothe Correctional Ins titution. Green has
also filed a motion to strike the warden’s merit brief for lack of a valid certificateS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 of service. We affirm the judgme nt of the court of appeals and deny the motion to strike.
Green’s Petition {¶ 2} In April 2013, Green pleaded guilty to two amended charges of r ape and the trial court sentenced him to an aggregate nine-year pri son term. Green did not directly appeal his co nvictions or sentence. {¶ 3} In December 2015, Green filed a petition for a writ of habeas c orpus in the Ross County Court of Common Pleas, alleging deprivations of his constitutional rights. The trial court dismissed Green’s petit ion because he could have raised his claims on direct appeal. {¶ 4} On March 14, 2019, Green filed against the warden a petition fo r a writ of habeas corpus in the Fourth District, arguing that he w as entitled to immediate release because no criminal complaint had been filed, the case had not been properly before the grand jury, and all subsequent proceed ings were a nullity. {¶ 5} On June 28, 2019, the court of appeals granted the warden’s mot ion to dismiss on two grounds: Green’s claims were not cognizable i n habeas corpus and res judicata bars his su ccessive habeas corpus petition. G reen appealed to this

court. {¶ 6} The court of appeals’ analysis is correct in both respects. Re s judicata bars Green’s 2019 habeas corpus petition because he filed an ea rlier petition for a writ of habeas corpus in which he could have raised any cogniza ble claim that he had, Bevins v. Richards , 144 Ohio St.3d 54, 2015-Ohio-2832, 40 N.E.3d 1108, ¶ 4. In addition, the claims raised in Green’s 2019 petition were no t cognizable in habeas corpus. “Any defect caused by the alleged failure to fi le criminal complaints or the claimed impropriety of the municipal court’s assumption of jurisdiction over * * * rape charges is not cognizable in habeas corpus.” Taylor v. Mitchell , 88 Ohio St.3d 453, 454, 727 N.E.2d 905 (2000). Green was convicted and sentenced uponJanuary Term, 2020

3 indictments, and the trial cour t had jurisdiction over his case

. Boylen v. Bradshaw , 108 Ohio St.3d 181, 2006-Ohio-549, 842 N.E.2d 49, ¶ 5.
Motion to Strike {¶ 7} S.Ct.Prac.R. 3.11(D)(1)(a) requi res that “all documents present ed for filing with the Clerk shall contain a certificate of service. The certificate of service shall state the date and manner of service and identify the nam es of the persons served and shall be signed by the party or the amicus curiae wh o files the document.” {¶ 8} A certificate of service on the warden’s merit brief states tha t the warden sent a copy of the brief to Green on October 8, 2019. G reen has attached
to his motion to strike a cover letter from the warden dated Oc tober 9, 2019, showing that October 9 was the date on which the warden sent hi s brief to Green. {¶ 9} Green claims that the discrepancy in the dates shows a “willful act” to deprive him of more time to prepare and deliver his reply br ief. But Green presents no evidence to support this claim. Green did not requ est a time extension and he filed his reply brief befo re the due date. Green also a cknowledges that he has not been prejudiced because, in Green’s words, the warden’s brief “contained nothing that even addressed Appe llant’s claim of erroneous case law, let alone disproved it.” Accordingly, Gr een’s motion to strike is denied

. Judgment affirmed.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and K ENNEDY , F RENCH , F ISCHER , D E W INE , D ONNELLY , and S TEWART , JJ., concur.

_________________ Danny M. Green, pro se. Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Maura O’Neill Jaite, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

_________________