State ex rel. Gibson v. Sloan (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 3422

Reginald Gibson was convicted in Stark County of felonious assault and abduction and is serving an eight-year prison term.
Gibson filed a habeas corpus petition in the Eleventh District Court of Appeals alleging trial-court jurisdictional defects arising from: excessive pretrial bond, denial of an impartial jury, improper waiver of counsel, ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, insufficient evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, and erroneous evidentiary rulings.
The Eleventh District dismissed the habeas petition, concluding Gibson’s claims were substantially the same as those raised in his second postconviction petition and that he had adequate remedies at law; the court noted Gibson had previously filed at least two postconviction petitions.
Gibson appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court and sought an evidentiary hearing; he also asserted the trial court erred by dismissing his first postconviction petition without journalized findings of fact and conclusions of law and claimed judicial bias.
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals: the asserted claims are not cognizable in habeas corpus and Gibson had (and used) adequate legal remedies; his R.C. 2953.21(C) and judicial-bias claims were waived and, in any event, not resolvable via habeas.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether habeas corpus is available to challenge trial errors (e.g., jury instructions, sufficiency, prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance)	Gibson argued these errors deprived the trial court of jurisdiction and entitled him to habeas relief	State argued such claims are not cognizable in habeas and must be raised on direct appeal or postconviction remedies	Not cognizable in habeas; dismissal affirmed
Whether an adequate remedy at law existed	Gibson contended habeas was appropriate despite other remedies	State asserted Gibson had adequate remedies (direct appeal, postconviction petitions) and had used them	An adequate remedy at law existed and bars habeas relief
Whether res judicata or prior postconviction litigation precludes habeas relief	Gibson sought successive review of trial errors via habeas	State argued res judicata and prior postconviction rulings preclude re-litigation in habeas	Res judicata/preclusion applies; claims previously litigated cannot be rehashed in habeas
Whether failure to journalize findings under R.C. 2953.21(C) and alleged judicial bias are proper habeas claims	Gibson claimed the trial court failed to journal findings and was biased	State argued Gibson waived these claims by not raising them in the appellate habeas petition and that they are not cognizable in habeas	Claims waived; and even if raised, not cognizable in habeas (mandamus for findings; habeas not for judicial neutrality)

Jackson v. Johnson, 135 Ohio St.3d 364 (2013) (habeas unavailable when adequate remedy at law exists)
State ex rel. O’Neal v. Bunting, 140 Ohio St.3d 339 (2014) (availability of adequate legal remedy, even if unused or unsuccessful, bars habeas)
Smith v. Smith, 123 Ohio St.3d 145 (2009) (habeas will not lie to challenge jury-verdict forms)
Smith v. Mitchell, 80 Ohio St.3d 624 (1998) (habeas not available to challenge jury instructions)
Keith v. Bobby, 117 Ohio St.3d 470 (2008) (prosecutorial-misconduct claims not cognizable in habeas)
State ex rel. Tarr v. Williams, 112 Ohio St.3d 51 (2006) (sufficiency-of-evidence claims not cognizable in habeas)
Bozsik v. Hudson, 110 Ohio St.3d 245 (2006) (claims of ineffective assistance or denial of counsel not cognizable in habeas)
Smith v. Leis, 106 Ohio St.3d 309 (2005) (habeas inadequate to challenge excessive pretrial bail after conviction)
State ex rel. Harsh v. Sheets, 132 Ohio St.3d 198 (2012) (res judicata bars successive habeas-based attempts to relitigate issues)
Konoff v. Moon, 79 Ohio St.3d 211 (1997) (mandamus, not habeas, may compel trial court to issue findings when dismissing postconviction petition)
Ellis v. McMackin, 65 Ohio St.3d 161 (1992) (habeas not available to challenge trial-judge neutrality)