Russell v. Duffey, 142 Ohio St. 3d 320

In October 2003 a jury convicted Robert W. Russell of 16 counts; he received concurrent life and other terms and was classified a sexual predator.
Russell appealed; the Eighth District affirmed and this court declined further review. He later filed a denied application to reopen his direct appeal raising prosecutorial misconduct and statute-of-limitations claims.
On April 10, 2014, while incarcerated at Southeastern Correctional Complex, Russell filed a habeas corpus complaint alleging prosecutorial misconduct and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the statute of limitations had expired.
Warden Sheri Duffey moved to dismiss, arguing Russell had not exhausted available remedies and that some claims were res judicata.
The court of appeals dismissed Russell’s habeas complaint because he had an adequate legal remedy (direct appeal/postconviction procedures) and he failed to attach a proper six‑month inmate account statement as required by R.C. 2969.25(C)(1).
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals for the same two reasons: alternative remedies and noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether habeas is available to challenge convictions based on prosecutorial misconduct and statute‑of‑limitations grounds	Russell: convictions result from prosecutorial misconduct and indictment occurred after the statute of limitations expired	Duffey: Russell had adequate remedies by direct appeal and reopening procedures; claims are subject to res judicata	Court: Dismissed—habeas unavailable because Russell had and used alternate remedies (appeal/reopening)
Whether failure to attach a six‑month inmate account statement requires dismissal	Russell: attached a statement but it covered the wrong period (ending Oct 2013)	Duffey: statement does not comply with R.C. 2969.25(C)(1) and is deficient	Court: Dismissed—statute’s filing requirement is mandatory; attachment must cover six months preceding the complaint

Pruitt v. Cook, 137 Ohio St.3d 296 (2013) (habeas is not a substitute for direct appeal or other ordinary remedies)
State ex rel. Jackson v. McFaul, 73 Ohio St.3d 185 (1995) (habeas unavailable when other adequate remedies exist)
Boles v. Knab, 129 Ohio St.3d 222 (2011) (requirements of R.C. 2969.25 are mandatory; noncompliance warrants dismissal)
State ex rel. White v. Bechtel, 99 Ohio St.3d 11 (2003) (enforcing mandatory inmate filing requirements under R.C. 2969.25)
State ex rel. McGrath v. McDonnell, 126 Ohio St.3d 511 (2010) (failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25 bars the action)