[Cite as Gooden v. Bradshaw, 2011-Ohio-5300.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

 RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

JESSE L. GOODEN 

 Petitioner 

-vsMARGARET BRADSHAW, Warden 

 Respondent 

: JUDGES: 

: William B. Hoffman, P.J. 

: John W. Wise, J. 

: Julie A. Edwards, J. 

: 

: Case No. 11CA55 

: 

:: O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Habeas Corpus 

 

JUDGMENT: Denied 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: October 12, 2011 

APPEARANCES: 

For Petitioner For Respondent 

JESSE L. GOODEN GENE D. PARK 

Richland Correctional Institute Criminal Justice Section 

1001 Olivesburg Rd. 150 East Gay Street, 16th Floor 

P.O. Box 8107 Columbus, Ohio 43215 

Mansfield, Ohio 44901-8107 

Hoffman, P.J. 

{¶1} Petitioner, Jesse Gooden, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

requesting immediate release from prison based upon an alleged void sentence. 
Petitioner claims the sentence is void because the trial court sentenced Petitioner on 

Count One despite the fact Count One was dismissed prior to trial. 

{¶2} Petitioner was indicted on four counts. Count One of the indictment was a 

charge of Felonious Assault which the State moved to dismiss prior to trial. A jury trial 

was held on the three remaining counts: Count Two was a charge of Failure to Comply 

with an Order of a Police Officer, Count Three was a charge of Vandalism, and Count 

Four was a charge of Felonious Assault. The jury found the Petitioner guilty of all three 

counts. The trial court essentially renumbered the jury verdict forms in a way which did 

not correspond to the same numbers listed on the indictment. It is undisputed Petitioner 

was convicted on three counts and sentenced on three counts. Petitioner argues his 

sentence was void because the count numbers assigned in the sentencing entry do not 

exactly correspond to the numbers contained in the indictment. 

{¶3} The Ninth District Court of Appeals approved the use of verdict forms 

which were labeled with numbers that did not correspond with the numbering on the 

indictment, “To avoid confusion, the crimes pertaining to Defendant in the jury verdict 

forms were simply labeled beginning on “Count One” rather than on “Count Three.” It is 

clear that Defendant was convicted for the crimes with which he was charged in the 

indictment. The different numbering of the counts in the indictment and verdict forms 

was neither error nor prejudicial to Defendant. See Crim.R. 52(A).” State v. Washington

1997 WL 775666, 7 (Ohio App. 9 Dist.). 

{¶4} We find Petitioner has or had an adequate remedy at law by way of direct 

appeal to challenge any defect in his sentence. “Like other extraordinary-writ actions, 

habeas corpus is not available when there is an adequate remedy in the ordinary 
course of law.” In re Complaint for Writ of Habeas Corpus for Goeller, 103 Ohio St.3d 

427, 2004-Ohio-5579, 816 N.E.2d 594, ¶ 6. 

{¶5} Finally, as the Supreme Court has held, “[H]abeas corpus is generally 

available only when the petitioner's maximum sentence has expired and he is being 

held unlawfully. Morgan v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 344, 346, 626 

N.E.2d 939, 941.” Heddleston v. Mack 84 Ohio St.3d 213, 213-214, 702 N.E.2d 1198, 

1198 (Ohio,1998); Hughley v. Duffey, 2009 WL 3790667, 1 (Ohio App. 5 Dist.). 

{¶6} Here Petitioner was sentenced on July 24, 2009 to a term of nine years in 

prison which has not expired. Because Petitioner remains incarcerated pursuant to a 

valid, unexpired sentence, habeas corpus does not lie. 

{¶7} PETITION DENIED. 

By: Hoffman, P.J. 

Wise, J. and 

Edwards, J. concur 

s/ William B. Hoffman ____________

s/ John W. Wise ________________

s/ Julie A. Edwards______________

 JUDGES 

WBH/as0906 
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

JESSE L. GOODEN : 

 : 

 Petitioner : 

 : 

 : 

-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY 

 : 

MARGARET BRADSHAW, Warden : 

 : 

 Respondent : CASE NO. 11CA55 

 For the reasons stated in our accompanying Opinion on file, Petitioner’s Petition for 

a Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied. Costs assessed to Petitioner. 

 s/ William B. Hoffman ________________

 s/ John W. Wise ____________________

 s/ Julie A. Edwards___________________

 JUDGES