McBroom v. Russell

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

77 Ohio St.3d 47

.]




            MCBROOM, APPELLANT, v. RUSSELL, WARDEN, APPELLEE.
                    [Cite as McBroom v. Russell, 

1996-Ohio-80

.]
Habeas corpus not available to challenge either the validity or the sufficiency of
        an indictment—Habeas corpus petition denied for failure to comply with
        R.C. 2725.04(D).
  (No. 96-870—Submitted September 24, 1996—Decided November 6, 1996.)
    APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Warren County, No. CA96-01-001.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} In January 1996, appellant, Leonard McBroom, an inmate at Lebanon
Correctional Institution, filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Warren County
for a writ of habeas corpus compelling his release from confinement. McBroom
alleged that in February 1989, he was indicted on multiple counts of robbery and
aggravated robbery with various specifications.             McBroom claimed that the
Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas lacked jurisdiction to try him on the
charged offenses because the indictment was not sufficiently specific to give him
notice of the charges. McBroom did not attach to his petition a copy of the common
pleas court’s judgment of conviction and sentence.              In addition, McBroom’s
petition contained no verification.
        {¶ 2} Appellee, Warden Harry K. Russell, filed a motion to dismiss the
petition.   In March 1996, the court of appeals granted Russell’s motion and
dismissed the petition.
        {¶ 3} The cause is now before this court upon appeal as of right.
                                ____________________
        Leonard McBroom, pro se.
        Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Karl R. Wetzel, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
                              SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




                              ____________________
        Per Curiam.
        {¶ 4} In his sole proposition of law, McBroom asserts that the court of
appeals erred in dismissing his habeas corpus petition. In order to withstand
dismissal, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus must conform to R.C. 2725.04 and
state with particularity the extraordinary circumstances entitling the petitioner to
the writ. See, generally, State ex rel. Jackson v. McFaul (1995), 

73 Ohio St.3d 185, 187

, 

652 N.E.2d 746, 748

.
        {¶ 5} As the court of appeals correctly held, McBroom merely challenged
the sufficiency of the indictment, which is not cognizable in habeas corpus. Luna
v. Russell (1994), 

70 Ohio St.3d 561, 562

, 

639 N.E.2d 1168, 1169

 (Habeas corpus
is not available to challenge either the validity or the sufficiency of an indictment.).
McBroom possessed an adequate remedy by direct appeal to raise this issue. 

Id.

        {¶ 6} In addition, McBroom failed to attach a copy of his trial court’s
sentencing order, in violation of R.C. 2725.04(D). Brown v. Rogers (1995), 

72 Ohio St.3d 339, 341

, 

650 N.E.2d 422, 423

, quoting Bloss v. Rogers (1992), 

65 Ohio St.3d 145, 146

, 

602 N.E.2d 602

 (“‘These commitment papers are necessary for a
complete understanding of the petition. Without them, the petition is fatally
defective. When a petition is presented to a court that does not comply with R.C.
2725.04(D), there is no showing of how the commitment was procured and there is
nothing before the court on which to make a determined judgment except, of course,
the bare allegations of petitioner’s application.’”). McBroom also did not verify
his petition. R.C. 2725.04 (“Application for the writ of habeas corpus shall be by
petition, signed and verified either by the party for whose relief it is intended, or by
some person for him ***.”). (Emphasis added.)
        {¶ 7} Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals properly dismissed the
petition.
        {¶ 8} Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.



                                           2
                          January Term, 1996




                                                    Judgment affirmed.
       MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
STRATTON, JJ., concur.
                         __________________




                                  3