Jackson v. Johnson
135 Ohio St. 3d 364
| Ohio | 2013Background
- Jackson petitioned for habeas corpus from Madison Correctional Institution challenging his conviction/sentencing.
- Petition failed to attach a complete copy of commitment papers as required by R.C. 2725.04(D), including a missing signature page from the 2000 journal entry and a missing 2011 resentencing entry.
- Court of Appeals granted dismissal; Supreme Court reviews the petition on the sufficiency of attachments and cognizable habeas claims.
- Court holds that failure to attach commitment papers is fatally defective, and even if attached, the claims are not cognizable in habeas corpus where there is an adequate remedy at law.
- Jackson’s asserted due-process, sentencing-allied offenses, and appeal-right issues were remediable by ordinary appellate avenues, not habeas corpus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to attach commitment papers is fatal | Jackson argues attachments were incomplete but seeks habeas relief. | Johnson contends missing papers render petition defective. | Defect is fatal; failure to attach required commitment papers dismisses habeas petition. |
| Whether habeas corpus is cognizable for non-cognizable claims when remedy exists | Jackson claims due-process and sentencing errors warrant relief in habeas corpus. | There is an adequate remedy at law via direct appeal for these claims. | Habeas relief inappropriate; adequate remedy at law exists. |
| Whether due-process/instruction claim is cognizable in habeas corpus | Trial court allegedly mis-instructed the jury, petition seeks relief. | Adequate remedy by appeal; habeas corpus not proper for this claim. | Not cognizable in habeas corpus; remedy via appeal. |
| Whether alleged allied-offense sentencing errors are cognizable in habeas corpus | Two sentences for allied offenses violated law. | Allied-offense claims are nonjurisdictional and not cognizable in habeas corpus. | Not cognizable in habeas corpus; remedy via appeal. |
| Whether petitioner's right to appeal provides an adequate remedy at law | Appeal rights were undermined by procedural dismissals/denials of delayed appeals. | Availability of appeal is an adequate remedy at law. | Adequate remedy at law exists; habeas relief inappropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hughley v. Saunders, 123 Ohio St.3d 90, 2009-Ohio-4089 (Ohio Supreme Court 2009) (failure to attach commitment papers is fatally defective)
- Nickleson v. Mayberry, 131 Ohio St.3d 416, 2012-Ohio-1300 (Ohio Supreme Court 2012) (due-process arguments reviewable on appeal; habeas not required)
- Smith v. Mitchell, 80 Ohio St.3d 624, 687 N.E.2d 749 (1998) (Ohio Supreme Court 1998) (claims cognizable on appeal; habeas corpus not exclusive remedy)
- Smith v. Voorhies, 119 Ohio St.3d 345, 2008-Ohio-4479 (Ohio Supreme Court 2008) (allied-offense issues nonjurisdictional; appeal remedy available)
- Mosely v. Echols, 62 Ohio St.3d 75, 578 N.E.2d 454 (1991) (Ohio Supreme Court 1991) (allied-offense claims not cognizable in habeas corpus)
- Childers v. Wingard, 83 Ohio St.3d 427, 700 N.E.2d 588 (1998) (Ohio Supreme Court 1998) (availability of appeal is adequate remedy at law)
- State v. Douglas, 2007-Ohio-5941 (Ohio Court of Appeals 2007) (appellate reinstatement possible when counsel failed to raise issue)