2014 Ohio 4977
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- In 2006 Damon Shawn Lloyd shot and killed David Richardson; a Warren County grand jury indicted him for murder with a firearm specification.
- After a bench trial Lloyd was convicted and sentenced to an aggregate 18 years to life; the Twelfth District affirmed and the Ohio Supreme Court declined review.
- In February 2014 Lloyd (while incarcerated at Chillicothe C.I.) filed a habeas corpus petition in Ross County seeking release, alleging his indictment was tainted because his wife was coerced into testifying at the grand jury without being advised of spousal privilege.
- Lloyd did not attach a copy of his commitment/sentencing entry to the petition as required by R.C. 2725.04(D); he later submitted it in opposition but not as part of the original filing.
- The warden moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6); the trial court dismissed the petition, concluding Lloyd failed to attach commitment papers, his claims were barred by res judicata, and habeas corpus cannot be used to challenge an indictment. Lloyd appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petition was fatally defective for not attaching commitment papers | Lloyd contends omission was harmless or caused by prison mailing error; later provided sentencing entry | Warden argues R.C. 2725.04(D) requires commitment papers attached to the petition; omission is fatal | Court: Dismissal proper; failure to attach commitment papers rendered petition fatally defective and later attachment did not cure defect (Fugett, Day, Boyd) |
| Whether res judicata bars habeas claim attacking grand jury/indictment | Lloyd says grand jury irregularities (coerced spousal testimony) justify collateral habeas relief | Warden contends Lloyd could have raised claim at trial or on direct appeal; thus res judicata applies | Court: Res judicata bars the claim because it could have been raised at trial or on direct appeal (Perry; Smith; McClellan) |
| Whether habeas corpus is the proper remedy to challenge the indictment | Lloyd argues indictment defects merit habeas relief as conviction is illegal | Warden argues habeas is not available to attack charging instruments; appropriate remedy was direct appeal or postconviction procedures | Court: Habeas corpus cannot be used to challenge an indictment or charging procedure; claim not cognizable in habeas (Tarr; Nelson; Orr; Monroe) |
| Whether Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal standard was properly applied | Lloyd asserts factual inferences favor him and dismissal was premature | Warden contends even assuming allegations true, law bars relief so dismissal appropriate | Court: Applied standard correctly; even with allegations assumed true, relief was not available so dismissal affirmed (Volbers-Klarich; Boles) |
Key Cases Cited
- Fugett v. Turner, 140 Ohio St.3d 1 (2014) (failure to attach commitment papers to habeas petition is fatally defective)
- Day v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 566 (2008) (post-filing attachment of commitment papers does not cure defect)
- Boyd v. Money, 82 Ohio St.3d 388 (1998) (same rule regarding attachments to habeas petitions)
- North v. Beightler, 112 Ohio St.3d 122 (2006) (appellate review limited to record below; cannot add new matter on appeal)
- Smith v. Voorhies, 119 Ohio St.3d 345 (2008) (res judicata bars claims that could have been raised on direct appeal)
- McClellan v. Mack, 129 Ohio St.3d 504 (2011) (same res judicata principle in postconviction context)
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (establishes res judicata rule for criminal convictions)
- State ex rel. Tarr v. Williams, 112 Ohio St.3d 51 (2006) (habeas corpus not available to attack indictment)
- State ex rel. Nelson v. Griffin, 103 Ohio St.3d 167 (2004) (charging method is procedural, not jurisdictional; habeas cannot be used to challenge indictment)
- Orr v. Mack, 83 Ohio St.3d 429 (1998) (same principle that indictment sufficiency is not cognizable in habeas)
- Monroe v. Jackson, 119 Ohio St.3d 344 (2008) (habeas is not the appropriate remedy to attack charging instruments)
- Boles v. Knab, 130 Ohio St.3d 339 (2011) (applying Civ.R. 12(B)(6) standard to habeas petitions)
- Volbers-Klarich v. Middletown Mgt., Inc., 125 Ohio St.3d 494 (2010) (standard for dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6))