Patrick v. Bunting (Slip Opinion)
150 Ohio St. 3d 537
| Ohio | 2017Background
- In 2011 Alonzo Raymont Patrick pleaded guilty to aggravated burglary with a firearm specification, abduction, and having a weapon while under a disability; sentenced to seven years (max expiration March 2018).
- Patrick is confined at Marion Correctional Institution.
- In 2016 he filed a habeas corpus petition in the Third District seeking immediate release, alleging the common pleas court lacked jurisdiction because of defects in the charging complaint and his arrest.
- The respondent warden moved to dismiss; the court of appeals granted dismissal because Patrick did not file the affidavit required by R.C. 2969.25(A) and because his claims were not cognizable in habeas corpus.
- Patrick appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, arguing lack of subject-matter and personal jurisdiction arising from a timing discrepancy in the complaint (complaint sworn March 3, 2011 but alleged misconduct on March 31, 2011) and challenging the dismissal for noncompliance with the affidavit requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the 2011 criminal case | Patrick: Complaint/indictment defect (date discrepancy) deprived court of jurisdiction and violated due process | Warden: Habeas corpus challenges to complaints/indictments are not cognizable; ordinary remedies existed | Court: Dismissed—habeas corpus will not lie to challenge a complaint or indictment; timing discrepancy irrelevant |
| Whether habeas corpus may raise claims related to arrest | Patrick: Arrest-related defects void conviction and warrant habeas relief | Warden: Arrest issues are not cognizable in habeas; other remedies were available | Court: Dismissed—arrest-related claims are not appropriate in habeas; Simpson v. Maxwell controls |
| Whether failure to file the R.C. 2969.25(A) affidavit independently justified dismissal | Patrick: Challenges dismissal for noncompliance with affidavit rule | Warden: Noncompliance justified dismissal | Court: Declined to rely on affidavit issue because claims were not cognizable in habeas; substantive bar dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Appenzeller v. Miller, 136 Ohio St.3d 378, 2013-Ohio-3719, 996 N.E.2d 919 (court limits habeas to challenges to sentencing-court jurisdiction; nonjurisdictional errors only if no adequate remedy at law)
- Harris v. Bagley, 97 Ohio St.3d 98, 2002-Ohio-5369, 776 N.E.2d 490 (habeas corpus does not lie to challenge a complaint or indictment)
- Simpson v. Maxwell, 1 Ohio St.2d 71, 1964 (arrest-related claims are not cognizable in habeas corpus)