Case Name: The State ex rel. Harsh, Appellant, v. Sheets, Warden, Appellee
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 2012-05-31
Citations: 132 Ohio St. 3d 198
Docket Number: No. 2012-0093
Parties: The State ex rel. Harsh, Appellant, v. Sheets, Warden, Appellee.
Judges: O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp, and McGee Brown, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 132
Pages: 198–199

Head Matter:
The State ex rel. Harsh, Appellant, v. Sheets, Warden, Appellee.
[Cite as State ex rel. Harsh v. Sheets, 132 Ohio St.3d 198, 2012-Ohio-2368.]
(No. 2012-0093
Submitted May 23, 2012
Decided May 31, 2012.)

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of appellant, Robert Harsh, for a writ of habeas corpus. Harsh previously unsuccessfully raised many of his same claims in his direct appeal, State v. Harsh, Butler App. No. CA2007-03-083, so res judicata bars him from using habeas corpus to obtain a successive appellate review of the same claims. See Roberts v. Knab, 131 Ohio St.3d 60, 2012-Ohio-56, 960 N.E.2d 457, ¶ 1.
{¶ 2} Moreover, because Harsh either raised or could have raised his claims in three previous state habeas corpus cases, res judicata also bars him from filing a successive habeas corpus petition. Nickelson v. Knab, 131 Ohio St.3d 199, 2012-Ohio-579, 963 N.E.2d 154, ¶ 1. Like the court of appeals in this case, we similarly dismissed a successive habeas corpus petition filed by Harsh in 2011. Harsh v. Knab, 128 Ohio St.3d 1498, 2011-Ohio-2420, 947 N.E.2d 681.
{¶ 3} Finally, Harsh's claims are not cognizable in habeas corpus, and he had an adequate remedy by way of appeal to raise his claims. See Smith v. Smith, 123 Ohio St.3d 145, 2009-Ohio-4691, 914 N.E.2d 1036, ¶ 1 (claim that jury-verdict forms did not list essential elements of criminal offense); Haynes v. Voorhies, 110 Ohio St.3d 243, 2006-Ohio-4355, 852 N.E.2d 1198, ¶ 5 (claim challenging validity of amendment to an indictment); State ex rel. Austin v. Knab, 127 Ohio St.3d 118, 2010-Ohio-4982, 936 N.E.2d 958, ¶ 1 (claim of nonjurisdictional sentencing errors); Webber v. Kelly, 120 Ohio St.3d 440, 2008-Ohio-6695, 900 N.E.2d 175, ¶ 8 (claim challenging sufficiency of the evidence); Keith v. Bobby, 117 Ohio St.3d 470, 2008-Ohio-1443, 884 N.E.2d 1067, ¶ 15 (claims of fraud upon the court and prosecutorial misconduct).
Robert Harsh, pro se.
Judgment affirmed.
O'Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp, and McGee Brown, JJ., concur.