[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 Decisions, 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. 

SLIP OPINION NO. 2016-OHIO-3310

KNEUSS, APPELLANT, v. SLOAN, WARDEN, APPELLEE.

[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 remedy at law precludes relief in habeas 

corpus—Dismissal affirmed. 

(No. 2015-1210—Submitted April 5, 2016—Decided June 9, 2016.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals 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. 

 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

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 aggravated arson and illegal cultivation of 

marijuana. He did not challenge his convictions or sentences 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 court 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 court failed to advise him of his “nonwaivable” right to direct appeal. 

{¶ 4} Appellee, Warden Brigham Sloan, moved 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 parties 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 which 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 habeas 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 the jurisdiction of the sentencing court 

and are not cognizable in habeas corpus, because he had an adequate remedy at law, 

namely direct appeal or a petition for postconviction relief, through 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 rendered 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. But 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 dismissed 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 and the fire still remains undetermined.” To the extent 

that Kneuss is arguing actual innocence, the court of appeals correctly dismissed 

his petition because he had an adequate remedy 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 legal 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 unsuccessful, precludes a writ of habeas corpus. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

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, including 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’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY,

FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 

_________________ 

Bryan D. Kneuss, pro se. 

Michael DeWine, Ohio Attorney General, and Maura O’Neill Jaite, 

Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. 

_________________