2019 Ohio 4760
Ohio2019Background
- Jeremy Kerr was convicted in Wood County of four counts of forgery and four counts of tampering with evidence and sentenced in June 2013 to an aggregate term of 7 years, 8 months.
- On January 28, 2019 Kerr filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Third District Court of Appeals against Warden Neil Turner.
- The court of appeals dismissed the habeas petition for failure to state a cognizable habeas claim and on the ground of res judicata.
- Kerr challenged his convictions on four grounds: insufficiency of the evidence, improper venue, improper admission of hearsay, and prosecutorial misconduct.
- The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed, holding that habeas corpus generally lies only to challenge the sentencing court's jurisdiction and that Kerr's claims were not cognizable in habeas and had been previously litigated on direct appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence | Prosecution failed to prove every element of forgery | Habeas is not the proper vehicle to contest sufficiency | Not cognizable in habeas; claim must be raised on direct appeal |
| Venue | Crimes did not occur in Wood County | Venue defects must be raised on appeal, not in habeas | Not cognizable in habeas |
| Admissibility / hearsay | Trial court improperly admitted hearsay evidence | Challenges to admissibility are not for habeas review | Not cognizable in habeas |
| Prosecutorial misconduct | State engaged in misconduct at trial | Prosecutorial-misconduct claims are not cognizable in habeas | Not cognizable in habeas |
| Res judicata | (Kerr had previously appealed) | Claims already litigated on direct appeal are barred | Claims barred by res judicata |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Timmerman-Cooper, 93 Ohio St.3d 614, 757 N.E.2d 1153 (Ohio 2001) (habeas lies only in extraordinary circumstances to challenge unlawful restraint)
- Pegan v. Crawmer, 76 Ohio St.3d 97, 666 N.E.2d 1091 (Ohio 1996) (describing narrow scope of habeas relief)
- State ex rel. Quillen v. Wainwright, 152 Ohio St.3d 566, 99 N.E.3d 360 (Ohio 2018) (habeas typically limited to jurisdictional challenges)
- Tarr v. Williams, 112 Ohio St.3d 51, 857 N.E.2d 1225 (Ohio 2006) (habeas not available to challenge sufficiency of the evidence)
- Cook v. Maxwell, 2 Ohio St.2d 107, 206 N.E.2d 558 (Ohio 1965) (venue defects must be raised on appeal, not in habeas)
- Davie v. Edwards, 80 Ohio St.3d 170, 685 N.E.2d 228 (Ohio 1997) (challenges to admissibility of evidence are not cognizable in habeas)
- Keith v. Bobby, 117 Ohio St.3d 470, 884 N.E.2d 1067 (Ohio 2008) (prosecutorial-misconduct claims are not cognizable in habeas)