[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Kneuss v. Sloan, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-3310.]

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 De cisions, 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.

S LIP O PINION N O . 2016-O HIO -3310
K NEUSS , A PPELLANT , v. S LOAN , W ARDEN , A PPELLEE . [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Kneuss v. Sloan, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-3310.] Habeas corpus—Availability of adequate re medy at law preclude s relief in habeas corpus—Dismissal affirmed. (No. 2015-1210—Submitted April 5, 2016—Decided June 9, 2016.)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeal s for Ashtabula County, No. 2015-A-0004, 2015-Ohio-2201.

________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} Appellant, Bryan D. Kneuss, appeals from the judgment of the Eleventh District Court of Appeals dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Because he has or had adequate remedies at law to raise his claims, we
affirm.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 Background {¶ 2} Kneuss is currently incarcerated at the Lake Erie Correctional Institution and is serving a four-year sentence imposed in 2013 by the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas for aggrav ated arson and illegal cultivation of marijuana. He did not cha llenge his convictions or sent ences through direct appeal or postconviction relief. {¶ 3} But in January 2015, Kneuss filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Eleventh District Court of Appeals. He argued that his case was improperly bound over from the municipal cour t to the common pleas court, he was deprived of his right to counsel, his guilty plea was involuntary and unknowing, he was actually innocent of the charges, he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, his convictions were not supported by sufficient evidence or the manifest weight of the evidence, and the trial c ourt failed to advise him of his “nonwaivable” right to direct appeal. {¶ 4} Appellee, Warden Brigham Sloan, m oved to dismiss the petition. The appellate court dismissed Kneuss’s habeas petition because he has or had adequate remedies at law to raise these claims. The court also noted that the petition was improperly captioned and did not include the addresses of the par ties as is required under Civ.R. 10(A). {¶ 5} Kneuss timely appealed to this court and challenges the appellate
court’s dismissal of his habeas action through three propositions of law. Analysis {¶ 6} The court of appeals properly dismissed Kneuss’s case because he has or had adequate remedies at law through wh ich to raise his claims. A writ of habeas corpus “will lie only to challenge the jurisdiction of the sentencing court. R.C.
2725.05. The few situations in which ha beas corpus may lie to correct a nonjurisdictional error are those in which there is no adequate remedy at law.” Appenzeller v. Miller , 136 Ohio St.3d 378, 2013-Ohio-3719, 996 N.E.2d 919, ¶ 9.January Term, 2016

3 Kneuss’s habeas claims do not challenge th e jurisdiction of the sentencing court and are not cognizable in habeas corpus, be cause he had an adequate remedy at law, namely direct appeal or a petition for pos tconviction relief, thr ough which he could
have raised those claims. {¶ 7} In his first proposition of law, Kneuss contends that his trial attorney was constitutionally ineffective for failing to present allegedly exculpatory evidence to the court, which he claims re ndered his plea involuntary. However, we have repeatedly held that Sixth Amendment ineffective-assistance claims are not cognizable in habeas corpus. Wilson v. Hudson , 127 Ohio St.3d 31, 2010-Ohio4990, 936 N.E.2d 42, ¶ 1; Bozsik v. Hudson , 110 Ohio St.3d 245, 2006-Ohio-4356, 852 N.E.2d 1200, ¶ 7. {¶ 8} In his second proposition of law, he claims that his convictions are not supported by sufficient evidence. Bu t challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence are also not cognizable in habeas corpus. State ex rel. Tarr v. Williams
, 112 Ohio St.3d 51, 2006-Ohio-6368, 857 N.E.2d 1225, ¶ 4. {¶ 9} In his third proposition of law, Kneuss argues that the court of appeals
abused its discretion when it dismisse d his habeas case “by denying the new evidence that Appellant was not operating a meth lab at the time of the fire nor was it proven that a lab ever exist [sic] due to the reports of hazmat and the fire department investigation a nd the fire still remains undete rmined.” To the extent that Kneuss is arguing actual innocence, the court of appeals correctly dismissed his petition because he had an adequate re medy at law to assert that claim. See
Junius v. Eberlin , 122 Ohio St.3d 53, 2009-Ohio-2383, 907 N.E.2d 1179, ¶ 1 (“Junius had adequate lega l remedies to raise his claim of actual innocence”). {¶ 10} We hold that the appellate court correctly found that Kneuss has or had adequate remedies at law in the form of direct appeal and postconviction relief to raise these claims. The availability of alternative remedies at law, even if those remedies were not sought or were unsucce ssful, precludes a writ of habeas corpus.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4 State ex rel. O’Neal v. Bunting , 140 Ohio St.3d 339, 2014-Ohio-4037, 18 N.E.3d 430, ¶ 14. {¶ 11} Finally, a petitioner’s failure to list the proper parties and their respective addresses in the case caption renders a habeas petition or complaint
defective. State ex rel. Sherrills v. State , 91 Ohio St.3d 133, 742 N.E.2d 651 (2001). As the court of appeals aptly noted, Kneuss’s petition does not include a case caption or include any party addresses, incl uding his own, and is therefore defective under Civ.R. 10(A). {¶ 12} For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. Judgment affirmed.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and P FEIFER , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , K ENNEDY , F RENCH , and O’N EILL , JJ., concur.

_________________ Bryan D. Kneuss, pro se. Michael DeWine, Ohio Attorney General, and Maura O’Neill Jaite, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

_________________