[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 

Smith v. Sheldon, Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-1677.] 

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. 2019-OHIO-1677

SMITH, APPELLANT, v. SHELDON, WARDEN, APPELLEE.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as Smith v. Sheldon, Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-1677.] 

Habeas corpus—Alleged sentencing errors and challenges to validity of an 

indictment are not cognizable in habeas corpus—Court of appeals’ 

dismissal of petition affirmed.

(No. 2018-1195—Submitted February 19, 2019—Decided May 7, 2019.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Richland County, 

No. 18CA47, 2018-Ohio-3233. 

__________________ 

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Eddie Lee Smith, an inmate at the Mansfield Correctional 

Institution, appeals the judgment of the Fifth District Court of Appeals dismissing 

his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We affirm. 

 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

Background

{¶ 2} In May 2016, Smith was convicted and sentenced in two criminal 

cases in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. In the first case, he pleaded 

guilty to robbery and having weapons while under disability and was sentenced to 

a 24-month term of community control, subject to a prison term of 36 months if he 

violated the terms of his community control. In the second case, Smith pleaded 

guilty to obstructing justice and was sentenced to a 24-month term of community 

control, subject to a prison term of 12 months if he violated the terms of his 

community control. 

{¶ 3} In November 2016, the trial court concluded that Smith had violated 

the terms of his community control and imposed prison sentences totaling 48 

months. 

{¶ 4} In June 2018, Smith filed a habeas corpus petition in the Fifth District 

Court of Appeals, naming appellee, Edward Sheldon, warden of the Mansfield 

Correctional Institution, as the respondent. In August 2018, the court of appeals 

granted the warden’s motion to dismiss Smith’s petition, holding that Smith had an 

adequate remedy at law to raise most of his claims and that another claim was 

without merit. Smith filed a timely appeal. 

Law and Analysis

Smith’s Petition for Habeas Corpus

{¶ 5} A court may dismiss a habeas action under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure 

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted “if, after all factual allegations are 

presumed true and all reasonable inferences are made in [the petitioner’s] favor, it 

appears beyond doubt that he could prove no set of facts entitling him to the 

requested extraordinary relief in habeas corpus.” Keith v. Bobby, 117 Ohio St.3d 

470, 2008-Ohio-1443, 884 N.E.2d 1067, ¶ 10. This court reviews a dismissal under 

Civ.R. 12(B)(6) de novo. State ex rel. McKinney v. Schmenk, 152 Ohio St.3d 70, 

2017-Ohio-9183, 92 N.E.3d 871, ¶ 8. 
January Term, 2019 

3

{¶ 6} In his appeal, Smith urges that the court of appeals’ judgment should 

be reversed for four reasons. First, he contends that his sentences are void because 

the trial court improperly sentenced him to both prison and community control on 

each count. But even if that is true, sentencing errors made by a court that had 

proper jurisdiction are not cognizable in habeas corpus, because a prisoner has an 

adequate remedy at law by filing a direct appeal or seeking postconviction relief. 

Jimison v. Wilson, 106 Ohio St.3d 342, 2005-Ohio-5143, 835 N.E.2d 34, ¶ 9. 

{¶ 7} Second, Smith argues that the trial court did not comply with Crim.R. 

32(C) and imposed the sentences as a “sentencing package” instead of imposing a 

separate sentence for each offense. Again, even if the sentencing entry was 

incorrect, Smith’s remedy for a sentencing entry that violates Crim.R. 32(C) is not 

release from prison; it is to seek a corrected sentencing entry. See Dunn v. Smith, 

119 Ohio St.3d 364, 2008-Ohio-4565, 894 N.E.2d 312, ¶ 8, 10. 

{¶ 8} Third, Smith claims that his 12-month sentence for obstruction of 

justice, a fifth-degree felony, is void because that sentence should have been limited 

to 90 days under R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c)(i). R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c)(i) states that a 

court may impose a 90-day prison term upon an offender who has committed a 

misdemeanor or a “technical violation” of the conditions of a community-control 

sanction imposed for a fifth-degree felony. But because a common pleas court has 

subject-matter jurisdiction over felony cases, R.C. 2931.03, the trial court had 

jurisdiction to sentence Smith and to determine whether R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c)(i) 

applied. Thus, Smith’s claims are not cognizable in habeas corpus. See State ex 

rel. O’Neal v. Bunting, 140 Ohio St.3d 339, 2014-Ohio-4037, 18 N.E.3d 430, ¶ 13. 

{¶ 9} Fourth, Smith asserts that the indictment in his first case was amended 

from armed robbery to the lesser included crime of robbery but that he was not 

informed of the change before he accepted the plea deal. He argues that this failure 

to inform him of the amended indictment stripped the trial court of jurisdiction and 

denied him due process. Smith’s due-process claims are not cognizable in habeas 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

corpus because he had an adequate remedy by way of direct appeal or by other 

means. See Jackson v. Johnson, 135 Ohio St.3d 364, 2013-Ohio-999, 986 N.E.2d 

989, ¶ 3. Likewise, challenges to the sufficiency or validity of an indictment are 

not cognizable in habeas corpus, Jury v. Miller, 147 Ohio St.3d 49, 2016-Ohio3044, 59 N.E.3d 1280, ¶ 4, even when the challenge involves an amended 

indictment, see State ex rel. Raglin v. Brigano, 82 Ohio St.3d 410, 696 N.E.2d 585 

(1998). Smith had adequate legal remedies available to challenge the validity of 

the indictment. Id. 

Smith’s Motion for Summary Judgment

{¶ 10} In December 2018, Smith filed a motion in this court seeking 

summary judgment or, alternatively, an injunction or a stay of the trial court’s 

judgments entered in 2016. In his motion, Smith makes two additional arguments: 

(1) the trial court could not revoke his community control and sentence him to 

prison without first determining that he had properly waived counsel and (2) the 

court improperly permitted Smith’s “standby counsel” to file motions on his behalf. 

{¶ 11} We deny Smith’s motion for summary judgment because there is 

nothing in this court’s practice rules or any other court rule that provides for 

summary judgment in an appeal to this court. See, e.g., S.Ct.Prac.R. 6.02(B). We 

also deny Smith’s motion for an injunction or a stay of the trial court’s 2016 

decisions, because, while our practice rules permit the filing of a motion to stay “a 

lower court’s decision pending appeal,” S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.01(A)(2), he presents no 

evidence that a direct appeal regarding the 2016 decisions is pending in this court. 

Finally, to the extent that Smith’s arguments assert additional reasons why the court 

of appeals’ judgment should be reversed, the arguments raise concerns for which 

adequate legal remedies were available and they are not cognizable in habeas 

corpus. 

Judgment affirmed. 
January Term, 2019 

5

O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY,

and STEWART, JJ., concur. 

_________________ 

Eddie Lee Smith, pro se. 

Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Jerri L. Fosnaught, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee. 

_________________