Rance v. Watson, 2022 Ohio 1822

Background

In March 2016 William A. Rance pleaded guilty to multiple sex offenses; the trial court ordered a presentence investigation and a psychological report under R.C. 2947.06 and then sentenced him to an aggregate seven-year prison term in May 2016.
The court’s oral remarks and written order referenced a referral to the psychiatric clinic for a report to assist in disposition; no competency hearing under R.C. 2945.37 was held.
Rance later filed a habeas-corpus petition claiming the trial court lacked jurisdiction to accept his plea and sentence because competency had been called into question and no competency hearing was held.
The Third District Court of Appeals dismissed the petition under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), holding that Rance failed to state a cognizable habeas claim: ordering a psychological report for sentencing does not show a competency inquiry that divests subject-matter jurisdiction, and an adequate remedy at law (direct appeal) existed.
The Ohio Supreme Court denied Rance’s motion to strike the warden’s brief and affirmed the court of appeals, holding habeas relief was not appropriate because the sentence was entered by a court with subject-matter jurisdiction and the psychological report order did not trigger competency procedures.

Issues

Issue	Rance's Argument	Warden's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court lost subject-matter jurisdiction by ordering a psychological report that allegedly raised competency concerns	Ordering the psych report showed competency was in question and, without a competency hearing, the court lacked jurisdiction to accept the plea	The psych report was ordered under R.C. 2947.06 as part of presentence investigation, not under the competency statute; jurisdiction was not lost	Ordering a psychological report for sentencing does not implicate competency procedures and does not affect subject-matter jurisdiction
Whether failure to hold a competency hearing (if one were required) would render the plea/sentence void and entitle Rance to habeas relief	The absence of a competency hearing rendered the plea/sentence void and warrants immediate release	Habeas lies only for lack of jurisdiction; an erroneous sentence by a court with jurisdiction is voidable, not void; adequate remedy exists by appeal	Habeas is not available; an error in sentencing is voidable and challengeable on direct appeal rather than in habeas
Whether the warden’s appellee brief should be stricken for failing to address Rance’s propositions of law	Brief didn’t directly respond to Rance’s labeled propositions, so it violates practice rules and should be stricken	Appellee need only answer the appellant’s contentions (not mirror appellant’s proposition headings); the brief sufficiently addressed Rance’s contentions	Motion to strike denied; appellee’s brief complied with practice rules

Key Cases Cited

Johnson v. Timmerman-Cooper, 93 Ohio St.3d 614, 757 N.E.2d 1153 (defines narrow circumstances warranting habeas relief)
Pegan v. Crawmer, 76 Ohio St.3d 97, 666 N.E.2d 1091 (habeas proper only where no adequate remedy at law and restraint is unlawful)
State ex rel. Quillen v. Wainwright, 152 Ohio St.3d 566, 99 N.E.3d 360 (habeas normally limited to challenging jurisdiction)
State ex rel. McKinney v. Schmenk, 152 Ohio St.3d 70, 92 N.E.3d 871 (de novo review of Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissals)
State v. Henderson, 161 Ohio St.3d 285, 162 N.E.3d 776 (an erroneous sentence by a court with jurisdiction is voidable, not void)