[Cite as Spires v. Marquis, 2018-Ohio-3146.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

KEVIN SPIRES : JUDGES: 

 : 

 Petitioner : Hon., John W. Wise, PJ. 

 : Hon., Patricia A. Delaney, J. 

 : Hon., Earle E. Wise Jr., J. 

-vs- : 

 : 

DAVID MARQUIS, Warden : Case No. 18CA43 

Richland Correctional Institution : 

 : 

 : 

 Respondent : O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Habeas Corpus 

JUDGMENT: Dismissed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT: August, 3, 2018 

APPEARANCES: 

For Petitioner: For Respondent: 

Kevin Spires A636889 Michael DeWine 

Richland Correctional Institution Ohio Attorney General

1001 Olivesburg Rd. 

P.O. Box 8107 Mary Anne Reese 

Mansfield, Ohio 44901-8107 Assistant Attorney General 

 Criminal Justice Section 

 441 Vine Street, Suite 1600 

 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 
Richland County, Case No. 18CA43 2 

Delaney, P.J. 

{¶1} Petitioner Kevin Spires has filed a Complaint for Writ of Habeas corpus 

requesting release from prison based upon the allegation that the trial court improperly 

allowed his indictment to be amended without going through the grand jury. Respondent 

David Marquis, the warden of the Richland Correctional Institution has filed a Motion for 

Summary Judgment. 

FACTS 

¶2} Petitioner was convicted of eight counts of rape following a jury trial. During 

trial, the state moved to amend the indictment to reflect the victim was ten years of age 

rather than nine years of age during the allegations contained in the first four counts of 

the indictment. State v. Spires, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 10AP-861, 2011-Ohio-3312, ¶ 8. 

The trial court granted the motion to amend over Petitioner’s objection. Id. Petitioner was 

convicted and sentenced to a term of 20 years to life in prison. Petitioner’s sole claim is 

that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict him because the indictment was permitted 

to be amended without going through the grand jury process. 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

{¶3} “A court properly grants summary judgment “when an examination of all 

relevant materials filed in the action reveals that ‘there is no genuine issue as to any 

material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ ” Smith 

v. McBride, 130 Ohio St.3d 51, 2011-Ohio-4674, 955 N.E.2d 954, ¶ 12, quoting Civ.R. 

56(C).” State ex rel. Marsh v. Tibbals, 149 Ohio St.3d 656, 2017-Ohio-829, 77 N.E.3d 

909, ¶ 11. 
Richland County, Case No. 18CA43 3 

HABEAS CORPUS 

{¶4} “Habeas corpus will lie only to challenge the jurisdiction of the sentencing 

court. R.C. 2725.05.” Patrick v. Bunting, 150 Ohio St.3d 537, 2017-Ohio-6954, 83 N.E.3d 

926, ¶ 5. A claim regarding the validity of an amended indictment is nonjurisdictional in 

nature and should be raised on appeal of the criminal conviction. Haynes v. Voorhies, 

110 Ohio St.3d 243, 2006-Ohio-4355, 852 N.E.2d 1198, ¶ 5 (2006) 

{¶5} The Supreme Court has held, “[H]abeas corpus is not available to remedy 

a claim concerning the validity of an amendment to an indictment. See, e.g., Howard v. 

Randle, 95 Ohio St.3d 281, 2002-Ohio-2122, 767 N.E.2d 268, ¶ 6; State ex rel. Richard 

v. Seidner (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 149, 151, 666 N.E.2d 1134.” Haynes v. Voorhies, 110 

Ohio St.3d 243, 2006-Ohio-4355, 852 N.E.2d 1198, ¶ 6. 

{¶6} Because a claim as to validity of an amended indictment does not lie in 

habeas corpus and because Petitioner has or had an adequate remedy at law by way of 

appeal to challenge the amended indictment, the writ of habeas corpus will not issue. 

The motion for summary judgment is granted. 

By, Wise, P.J. 

Delaney, J. and 

E. Wise Jr., J. concur. 

 

 
[Cite as Spires v. Marquis, 2018-Ohio-3146.]