OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 

 The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of 

Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27, 

1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice 

Thomas J. Moyer. 

 Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's 

Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S. 

Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative 

Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010. 

Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome. 

 NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the 

full texts of the opinions after they have been released 

electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised 

to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West 

Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions. 

The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume 

and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound 

volumes of the Ohio Official Reports. 

 

Wilson, Appellant, v. Rogers, Appellee. 

[Cite as Wilson v. Rogers (1993), Ohio St.3d .] 

Habeas corpus denied when petitioner does not attack the 

 jurisdiction of the court. 

 (No. 93-835 -- Submitted September 28, 1993 -- Decided 

December 29, 1993.) 

 Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Marion County, No. 

9-93-04. 

 Appellant, John Wilson, filed a petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus in the Court of Appeals for Marion County, 

alleging the trial court lacked jurisdiction over him. In 

support of his claim, appellant asserted that the indictment 

was insufficient, the trial was marred by prosecutorial 

misconduct, and there was a lack of credible evidence to 

support his conviction. The court of appeals sua sponte 

dismissed the petition on the grounds that the petition raised 

claims that did not challenge the jurisdiction of the trial 

court. 

 The cause is before this court upon an appeal as of right. 

 

 John Wilson, pro se. 

 Lee Fisher, Attorney General, and John J. Gideon, 

Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. 

 Per Curiam. The court of appeals correctly dismissed the 

petition in this case and its judgment is affirmed. 

 The appellant raises the same three issues on appeal that 

he raised below. However, that court correctly concluded that 

habeas corpus was unavailable to review allegations of 

prosecutorial misconduct, Ellis v. McMackin (1992), 65 Ohio 

St.3d 161, 602 N.E.2d 611; the credibility of evidence used at 

trial, Saulsbury v. Green (1964), 175 Ohio St. 433, 25 O.O.2d 

445, 195 N.E.2d 787; and the sufficiency of an indictment, 

Chapman v. Jago (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 51, 2 O.O.3d 167, 356 

N.E.2d 721. 

 On appeal, appellant also argues that since eleven of the 

twenty indictments were dismissed by the trial court, all 

twenty indictments should be dismissed. Appellant contends 
that when the trial court dismissed the indictments, all 

indictments should have been dismissed under the doctrine of 

collateral estoppel, arguing that double jeopardy applies to 

the remaining counts against him. However, "[t]he Double 

Jeopardy Clauses contained in the Ohio and the United States 

Constitutions protect an accused from multiple prosecutions and 

multiple punishments for the same offense." (Emphasis added.) 

Shearman v. Van Camp (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 468, 469, 597 N.E.2d 

88, 92, citing State v. Thomas (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 254, 

258-260, 15 O.O.3d 262, 265, 400 N.E.2d 897, 902. The counts 

on which the appellant was convicted were separate offenses 

from the counts that were dismissed. Therefore, double 

jeopardy would not apply. Even if it did apply, double 

jeopardy is not a ground for post-conviction relief in habeas 

corpus. Neal v. Maxwell (1963), 175 Ohio St. 201, 202, 24 

O.O.2d 281, 282, 192 N.E.2d 782, 783. 

 None of appellant's arguments raises a jurisdictional 

claim. When the petitioner does not attack the jurisdiction of 

the court, habeas corpus will be denied. R.C. 2725.05; Stahl 

v. Shoemaker (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 351, 4 O.O. 3d 485, 364 

N.E.2d 286. 

 Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is 

affirmed. 

 Judgment affirmed. 

 Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. 

Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.