Perry v. Sloan (Slip Opinion), 149 Ohio St. 3d 690

Ronnie Perry was convicted in 2013 in Richland County of drug offenses in two cases and sentenced to a total of nine years' imprisonment.
Perry filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus claiming the jury-verdict forms were legally insufficient to support his convictions.
He argued that, because of deficient verdict forms, his maximum lawful sentence should have been one or two years and that he therefore was entitled to immediate release after having served more than three years.
The Warden (Brigham Sloan) moved to dismiss the habeas petition, arguing habeas was not the proper remedy for the claimed error.
The Eleventh District Court of Appeals granted the Warden’s motion and dismissed Perry’s petition; the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed that dismissal.

Issue	Perry's Argument	Sloan's Argument	Held
Whether habeas corpus may be used to challenge the validity of jury-verdict forms	Verdict forms were insufficient; therefore convictions and longer sentences are invalid and Perry is entitled to release	Habeas is not available to attack verdict forms; Perry had other adequate remedies	Habeas corpus is not available to challenge verdict forms; dismissal affirmed
Whether lack of counsel raising the issue on direct appeal deprived Perry of an adequate remedy at law	Appellate counsel failed to raise the verdict-form challenge, leaving Perry without an adequate remedy	Perry could have sought reopening of his appeal under App.R. 26(B); alternative remedies existed	Availability of App.R. 26(B) (and other remedies) means Perry had an adequate remedy; habeas barred

Wells v. Hudson, 113 Ohio St.3d 308 (2007) (habeas corpus not available to attack verdict forms)
Smith v. Mitchell, 80 Ohio St.3d 624 (1998) (claims that could have been raised on direct appeal are not cognizable in habeas)
State ex rel. O'Neal v. Bunting, 140 Ohio St.3d 339 (2014) (availability of alternative legal remedies, even if unused, precludes habeas relief)