Court Opinion

ID: 9378955
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-14 13:05:00.002718+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:26.979465
License: Public Domain

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State
ex rel. Martre v. Watson, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-749.]

                                           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. 2023-Ohio-749
 THE STATE EX REL. MARTRE, APPELLANT, v. WATSON, WARDEN, APPELLEE.
  [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it
         may be cited as State ex rel. Martre v. Watson, Slip Opinion No.
                                      2023-Ohio-749.]
Habeas corpus—Inmate has adequate remedy in ordinary course of law by way of
        direct appeal to challenge validity of indictment—Court of appeals’
        judgment dismissing petition for failure to state cognizable habeas claim
        affirmed.
    (No. 2022-0756—Submitted January 10, 2023—Decided March 14, 2023.)
        APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Marion County, No. 9-22-10.
                                   __________________
        Per Curiam.
        {¶ 1} Appellant, Derrick Martre, an inmate at the North Central
Correctional Complex, appeals the Third District Court of Appeals’ judgment
denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus against appellee, Warden Tom
Watson. After briefing was complete, Martre filed a motion for leave to supplement
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

his reply brief. We deny the motion for leave and affirm the judgment of the court
of appeals.
                                  I. Background
       {¶ 2} On May 25, 2017, Martre was arrested on a charge of domestic
violence. Upon his arrest, a Toledo Police Department detective seized and
searched Martre’s cellphone. Based on photos found on the phone, Martre was
indicted on charges of gross sexual imposition, pandering sexually oriented
material involving a minor, and illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material.
       {¶ 3} After pleading no contest, Martre filed a motion to withdraw his plea.
The trial court denied the motion and sentenced him to a prison term of 12 years.
On appeal, the court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the trial court did not
abuse its discretion in denying Martre’s motion to withdraw the plea. State v.
Martre, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-18-61, 2019-Ohio-2072, ¶ 25.
       {¶ 4} In March 2022, Martre filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in
the Third District seeking his release from confinement. He claimed that the trial
court had lacked jurisdiction to try him for four offenses allegedly committed in a
foreign county and that two of the counts in the indictment “do not charge a criminal
offense [and] thus are void.”
       {¶ 5} The Third District dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim
upon which habeas relief could be granted. The court held that Martre’s maximum
sentence had not expired and that the allegations in his petition did not challenge
the jurisdiction of the sentencing court. In any event, the court observed, Martre
had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law because he had the
opportunity to raise his claims on direct appeal.
       {¶ 6} Martre appealed. After briefing was complete, he filed an unopposed
motion for leave to supplement his reply brief.

                                          2
                                January Term, 2023

                                 II. Legal analysis
                              A. The motion for leave
       {¶ 7} Martre’s primary argument in this appeal is that the grand jury lacked
jurisdiction to indict him. The warden argues that Martre is confusing jurisdiction
with venue and that a challenge to venue does not allege a jurisdictional defect and
therefore is not a cognizable habeas claim. In his reply brief, Martre disputes the
warden’s characterization of his claim and seems to argue that the warden has
waived his argument.
       {¶ 8} Martre’s proposed supplement to his reply brief merely expands on
the arguments made in his reply brief. His motion for leave does not explain why
the filing is necessary or why he could not have included its contents in his reply
brief. S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.08 prohibits supplementation of merit briefs except in
limited circumstances, none of which Martre has alleged exist in this case.
Therefore, we deny Martre’s motion for leave.
                            B. The merits of the appeal
       {¶ 9} To be entitled to a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner must show that
he is being unlawfully restrained of his liberty and that he is entitled to immediate
release from prison or confinement. R.C. 2725.01; State ex rel. Cannon v. Mohr,
155 Ohio St.3d 213, 2018-Ohio-4184, 120 N.E.3d 776, ¶ 10. Habeas corpus is
generally available only when the petitioner’s maximum sentence has expired and
he is being held unlawfully. Heddleston v. Mack, 84 Ohio St.3d 213, 214, 702
N.E.2d 1198 (1998). As is true for other extraordinary writs, habeas corpus is not
available when there is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Billiter
v. Banks, 135 Ohio St.3d 426, 2013-Ohio-1719, 988 N.E.2d 556, ¶ 8. “However,
there is a limited exception to the adequate-remedy requirement: ‘when a court’s
judgment is void because it lacked jurisdiction, habeas is still an appropriate remedy
despite the availability of appeal.’ ” Leyman v. Bradshaw, 146 Ohio St.3d 522,
2016-Ohio-1093, 59 N.E.3d 1236, ¶ 9, quoting Gaskins v. Shiplevy, 74 Ohio St.3d

                                          3
                              SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

149, 151, 656 N.E.2d 1282 (1995). We review the dismissal of a habeas petition
de novo. State ex rel. Steele v. Foley, 164 Ohio St.3d 540, 2021-Ohio-2073, 173
N.E.3d 1209, ¶ 6.
        {¶ 10} As his first proposition of law, Martre asserts that the Allen County
Grand Jury that indicted him lacked jurisdiction to charge him with offenses that
he allegedly committed in Lucas County. He argues that “in order for a Court of
Common Pleas to obtain jurisdiction over an individual or offense, it must do so by
obtaining a valid indictment issued by a Grand Jury of that county, for offenses
committed only within that county.”
        {¶ 11} But what Martre attempts to cast as a jurisdictional defect is merely
a challenge to the validity of the indictment. Alleged defects in an indictment do
not deprive a trial court of jurisdiction. State ex rel. Sands v. Bunting, 150 Ohio
St.3d 325, 2017-Ohio-5697, 81 N.E.3d 459, ¶ 2, 4 (indictment allegedly failed to
set forth elements of offense charged). For this reason, challenges to the validity
of an indictment are not cognizable in habeas corpus. See State ex rel. Tarr v.
Williams, 112 Ohio St.3d 51, 2006-Ohio-6368, 857 N.E.2d 1225, ¶ 4. Instead, an
inmate has an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law by way of direct
appeal to challenge the validity of the indictment. McDougald v. Bowerman, 161
Ohio St.3d 268, 2020-Ohio-3942, 162 N.E.3d 762, ¶ 9. We therefore reject
Martre’s first proposition of law.
        {¶ 12} In support of his second proposition of law, Martre argues that the
indictment charged him with noncriminal conduct. According to Martre, the
indictment charged him with three counts of photographing a child in a state of
nudity, without specifying that the photographs were lewd.            But here again,
Martre’s challenge to the indictment is not cognizable in habeas corpus. Smith v.
Jago, 58 Ohio St.2d 298, 389 N.E.2d 1138 (1979) (affirming dismissal of habeas
claim that indictment failed to state essential elements of offense because “[t]he
sufficiency of an indictment does not relate to the jurisdiction of the court to try the

                                           4
                                 January Term, 2023

person for the crime for which he was convicted”). We therefore reject Martre’s
second proposition of law.
       {¶ 13} As his third proposition of law, Martre contends that the Third
District erred by dismissing his petition even though the warden had not filed a
Civ.R. 12(B) motion to dismiss or otherwise responded to the petition. But Martre
has identified no reason why the Third District could not sua sponte dismiss the
petition for failure to state a claim. To the contrary, we have previously endorsed
the practice of sua sponte dismissal when warranted. See Lundeen v. Turner, 164
Ohio St.3d 159, 2021-Ohio-1533, 172 N.E.3d 150, ¶ 11. We therefore reject
Martre’s third proposition of law.
                                   III. Conclusion
       {¶ 14} Based on the foregoing, we deny Martre’s motion for leave to
supplement his reply brief and we affirm the judgment of the Third District Court
of Appeals dismissing his petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief in
habeas corpus could be granted.
                                                                Judgment affirmed.
       KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER,
and DETERS, JJ., concur.
                                 _________________
       Derrick Martre, pro se.
       Dave Yost, Attorney General, and M. Scott Criss, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
                                 _________________

                                          5