State ex rel. Barnette v. Hill, 2022 Ohio 2469

In 2009 Barnette was indicted in Mahoning County and later convicted of four counts of aggravated murder, kidnapping, and arson; he received consecutive life-without-parole terms plus additional prison terms.
The Seventh District affirmed; the Ohio Supreme Court declined jurisdiction on direct appeal.
In September 2021 Barnette filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Third District claiming various grand-jury defects entitled him to immediate release.
The Third District granted the warden’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Barnette appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.
On appeal Barnette also attempted a new argument based on a June 2021 nunc pro tunc entry about postrelease control and moved to supplement the record with his trial-court file.
The Ohio Supreme Court denied the motion to supplement and affirmed the appellate dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are alleged grand-jury defects cognizable in habeas corpus?	Grand-jury errors (no oath, improper return, quorum, selection, withheld evidence, insufficient evidence) void the conviction and require release.	Grand-jury defects are procedural; adequate remedy exists by direct appeal; habeas lies only to attack jurisdiction or rare nonjurisdictional errors with no remedy.	Dismissed — grand-jury defects not cognizable in habeas.
Can Barnette recast grand-jury claims as due-process or prosecutorial-misconduct claims in habeas?	The defects amount to due-process violations and prosecutorial fraud, warranting habeas relief.	Due-process and prosecutorial-misconduct challenges are not cognizable in habeas corpus under Ohio precedent.	Dismissed — due-process and prosecutorial-misconduct claims not cognizable in habeas.
May Barnette raise on appeal a new claim about a June 2021 postrelease-control entry and supplement the record?	The June 2021 nunc pro tunc entry failed to reimpose other sentences, so Barnette is entitled to release; requests trial-court file to prove it.	New theory was not pleaded in the habeas petition and is waived; evidence cannot be added on appeal.	Denied — new claim waived; motion to supplement denied.

Davis v. Hill, 187 N.E.3d 543 (de novo review of habeas-corpus dismissal)
Kneuss v. Sloan, 54 N.E.3d 1242 (habeas lies only to challenge jurisdiction or where no adequate remedy exists)
Appenzeller v. Miller, 996 N.E.2d 919 (limits on habeas for nonjurisdictional errors)
Orr v. Mack, 700 N.E.2d 590 (manner of charging is procedural, not jurisdictional)
McDougald v. Bowerman, 162 N.E.3d 762 (adequate remedy by direct appeal to challenge indictment)
Tarr v. Williams, 857 N.E.2d 1225 (indictment challenges not cognizable in habeas)
Jackson v. Johnson, 986 N.E.2d 989 (due-process claims not cognizable in habeas)
Hadlock v. McMackin, 575 N.E.2d 184 (prosecutorial fraud allegations not cognizable in habeas)
Russell v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 104 N.E.3d 767 (new claims raised on appeal are waived in extraordinary-writ cases)
Scruggs v. Sadler, 807 N.E.2d 357 (relators waive new claims not raised in original petition)