Curley v. Marquis
2017 Ohio 700
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Richard L. Curley is serving a 21-year prison sentence (seven burglary convictions, consecutive three-year terms) entered by the Summit County Court of Common Pleas on February 21, 2001.
- Curley filed a petition for a state writ of habeas corpus in the Fifth District Court of Appeals seeking release on the ground the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
- Curley’s jurisdictional claim rested on two defects: (1) no complaint was filed before his initial appearance, and (2) the indictment was invalid.
- The state (respondent Warden David Marquis) moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
- The panel considered Ohio Supreme Court precedent holding procedural charging defects are not grounds for habeas corpus after conviction.
- The court granted the motion to dismiss and assessed costs to petitioner.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether habeas corpus can be used to challenge failure to file a complaint before initial appearance | Curley: absence of a complaint deprived the trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction | State: habeas corpus is not available to attack procedural charging defects after conviction | Dismissed — failure to file complaint is not a basis for habeas relief |
| Whether habeas corpus may be used to attack the validity of the indictment | Curley: indictment was invalid, so court lacked jurisdiction | State: indictment defects must be raised on direct appeal, not by habeas | Dismissed — indictment validity cannot be challenged via habeas after conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. Bagley, 97 Ohio St.3d 98 (holding habeas is not available to challenge alleged failure to file criminal complaints)
- Taylor v. Mitchell, 88 Ohio St.3d 453 (procedural charging defects do not create jurisdictional defect for habeas)
- Orr v. Mack, 83 Ohio St.3d 429 (a conviction binds defendant for crime charged despite alleged procedural defects)
- State ex rel. Nelson v. Griffin, 103 Ohio St.3d 167 (same principle: manner of charging is procedural)
- State ex rel. Arroyo v. Sloan, 142 Ohio St.3d 541 (habeas not appropriate to challenge indictment)
- Robinson v. LaRose, 147 Ohio St.3d 473 (reaffirming that indictment challenges belong on direct appeal)
- State ex rel. Hadlock v. McMackin, 61 Ohio St.3d 433 (defendant must raise sufficiency of indictment by direct appeal)