[Cite as State ex rel. Rackley v. Sloan, 2015-Ohio-2984.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

ASHTABULA COUNTY, OHIO 

STATE OF OHIO ex rel. 

STEVEN L. RACKLEY, 

:

: 

PER CURIAM OPINION 

 Petitioner, 

 : CASE NO. 2015-A-0021 

 - vs - :

BRIGHAM SLOAN, WARDEN, :

: 

 Respondent. :

Original Action for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 

Judgment: Petition dismissed. 

Steven L. Rackley, pro se, PID: A641-397, Lake Erie Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 

8000, 501 Thompson Road, Conneaut, OH 44030 (Petitioner). 

Mike DeWine, Ohio Attorney General, State Office Tower, 30 East Broad Street, 25th 

Floor, Columbus, OH 43215 (For Respondent). 

PER CURIAM. 

{¶1} Petitioner, Steven L. Rackley, PID: A641-397, is in the custody of 

respondent, Brigham Sloan, Warden of the Lake Erie Correctional Institution, Ashtabula 

County, Ohio, on convictions for involuntary manslaughter and aggravated robbery. Mr. 

Rackley petitions this court for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to R.C. Chapter 2725, 

asserting that he is entitled to an immediate release from incarceration. 
 2

{¶2} In his March 27, 2015 petition, Mr. Rackley argues, inter alia, that he is 

entitled to release because of the following: there were defects in the criminal complaint; 

he was denied counsel during critical stages of the indictment; the indictment was 

invalid; his guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent; the evidence was 

insufficient to sustain his conviction; his counsel was ineffective; and his right to a 

speedy trial was violated. 

{¶3} By way of background, on April 24, 2013, Mr. Rackley, with the assistance 

of counsel, pled guilty in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CR12-563955-A, to the following two counts: involuntary manslaughter, a felony of the first 

degree, in violation of R.C. 2903.04(A); and aggravated robbery, a felony of the first 

degree, in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(3). The trial court sentenced Mr. Rackley to a 

total of 19 years in prison. 

{¶4} Mr. Rackley acknowledges that 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. In addition to the 

foregoing, Mr. Rackley filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Respondent filed a 

Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss on April 28, 2015. 

{¶5} “[W]hen a party files a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, all the 

factual allegations of the complaint must be taken as true and all reasonable inferences 

must be drawn in favor of the non-moving party.” Byrd v. Faber, 57 Ohio St.3d 56, 60 

(1991). 
 3

{¶6} Habeas corpus is an available remedy only in “certain extraordinary 

circumstances where there is an unlawful restraint of a person’s liberty, notwithstanding 

the fact that only nonjurisdictional issues are involved, but only where there is no 

adequate legal remedy, e.g., appeal or postconviction relief.” State ex rel. Jackson v. 

McFaul, 73 Ohio St.3d 185, 186 (1995), citing State ex rel. Pirman v. Money, 69 Ohio 

St.3d 591, 593 (1994). “Additionally, habeas corpus lies only if the petitioner is entitled 

to immediate release from confinement.” Id. at 188, citing Pewitt v. Lorain Corr. Inst., 64 

Ohio St.3d 470, 472 (1992) and R.C. 2725.17. 

{¶7} Upon review, Mr. Rackley’s claims are not cognizable under a petition for 

habeas corpus. He had an adequate remedy at law in the form of an appeal and a 

postconviction motion for relief to raise such alleged errors. Under the doctrine of res 

judicata, Mr. Rackley is barred from litigating, in a collateral proceeding, any claims 

which either were raised or could have been previously raised. See, e.g., State v. 

Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967). Mr. Rackley is not entitled to the extraordinary and 

extreme form of relief requested, i.e., immediate release from the custody of the state. 

{¶8} Viewing the allegations in the light most favorable to Mr. Rackley, we find 

that he has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Thornton v. 

Russell, 82 Ohio St.3d 93, 94 (1998) (any defect in the criminal complaint filed in 

municipal court is not cognizable in habeas corpus because petitioner was never 

convicted and sentenced on the complaint – instead, petitioner was convicted and 

sentenced upon the indictment); State ex rel. Tarr v. Williams, 112 Ohio St.3d 51, 2006-

Ohio-6368, ¶4 (habeas corpus is not available to remedy claims concerning the validity 

of an indictment); Jones v. Kelley, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2010-T-0020, 2010-Ohio-
 4

3682, ¶11 (manifest weight and sufficiency claims cannot be reviewed as part of a 

habeas corpus proceeding as such issues can be raised via direct appeal); Casey v. 

Hudson, 113 Ohio St.3d 166, 2007-Ohio-1257, ¶3 (claims involving ineffective 

assistance of counsel or the alleged denial of the right to counsel are not cognizable in 

habeas corpus); Tabor v. Goodrich, 11th dist. Ashtabula No. 2011-A-0075, 2012-Ohio647, ¶7 (plea irregularities are not jurisdictional in nature and thus are not cognizable 

claims under habeas corpus); Travis v. Bagley, 92 Ohio St.3d 322, 323 (2001) (a 

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

habeas corpus). 

{¶9} Accordingly, it is the order of this court that respondent’s motion to dismiss 

is hereby granted and Mr. Rackley’s habeas corpus petition is dismissed. Any pending 

motions are hereby overruled as moot. 

TIMOTHY P. CANNON, P.J., CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J., COLLEEN MARY 

O’TOOLE, J., concur.