Dunkle v. Department of Rehabilitation & Correction
148 Ohio St. 3d 621
| Ohio | 2017Background
- In 1986 David Dunkle pleaded guilty in Licking County to 11 counts: five rapes (Counts 1–5), six counts of complicity (Counts 6–11), with Count 6 carrying a firearm specification.
- Sentences imposed included multiple indefinite terms, life terms for Counts 6–9, and a consecutive three-year firearm term; Dunkle is incarcerated at Marion Correctional Institution.
- Dunkle filed a habeas corpus petition in 2015 alleging the 1986 sentencing entry contained errors: it described Counts 6–9 as “complicity to commit rape” and cited R.C. 2923.02(A)(4) (a nonexistent provision), rather than the correct R.C. 2923.03(A)(4).
- He argued those clerical/substantive errors rendered the sentencing entry void and deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to impose the life terms, entitling him to immediate release.
- The Ohio Court of Appeals (Third District) dismissed the petition; the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed, concluding Dunkle failed to show a jurisdictional defect and had an adequate remedy at law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether habeas corpus lies to attack sentencing-entry errors that allegedly change offenses and statutory citations | Dunkle: sentencing-entry errors (wrong wording and wrong statute citation) rendered the sentence void and the court lacked jurisdiction to impose life terms | State: sentencing errors are nonjurisdictional; habeas corpus lies only to challenge jurisdiction; trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction | Court: Habeas corpus not available for nonjurisdictional sentencing errors; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether an adequate remedy at law precludes habeas relief | Dunkle: sought habeas because entry was void; implied that other remedies were unavailable or ineffective | State: Dunkle had a direct-appeal remedy and other ordinary remedies to challenge the sentencing entry | Court: Availability of adequate remedies in ordinary course (e.g., direct appeal) bars habeas relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Appenzeller v. Miller, 136 Ohio St.3d 378 (2013) (habeas corpus lies only to challenge sentencing-court jurisdiction; few nonjurisdictional errors are cognizable only where no adequate remedy exists)
- State ex rel. O’Neal v. Bunting, 140 Ohio St.3d 339 (2014) (sentencing errors are not jurisdictional and availability of ordinary remedies precludes habeas relief)