Case Name: Woodfork, Appellant, v. Russell, Supt., Appellee
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1988-10-12
Citations: 39 Ohio St. 3d 138
Docket Number: No. 88-952
Parties: Woodfork, Appellant, v. Russell, Supt., Appellee.
Judges: Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, Douglas, Wright and H. Brown, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 39
Pages: 138–139

Head Matter:
Woodfork, Appellant, v. Russell, Supt., Appellee.
[Cite as Woodfork v. Russell (1988), 39 Ohio St. 3d 138.]
(No. 88-952
— Submitted July 5, 1988 —
Decided October 12, 1988.)
Luther A. Woodfork, pro se.
Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., attorney general, and Alexander G. Thomas, for appellee.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The court of appeals held that the counts of the indictment at issue were phrased in terms of the statute in compliance with Crim. R. 7 and denied the writ. Even if the indictment had been flawed, appeal or post-conviction relief, not habeas corpus, is the proper remedy. Walker v. Maxwell (1965), 1 Ohio St. 2d 136, 30 O.O. 2d 487, 205 N.E. 2d 394; Freeman v. Maxwell (1965), 4 Ohio St. 2d 4, 33 O.O. 2d 2, 210 N.E. 2d 885. Habeas corpus is not a proper remedy when a person is confined by judgment or order of a court that had jurisdiction in the matter. Stahl v. Shoemaker (1977), 50 Ohio St. 2d 351, 4 O.O. 3d 485, 364 N.E. 2d 286. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, Douglas, Wright and H. Brown, JJ., concur.