State ex rel. Lockhart v. Sheldon (Slip Opinion), 146 Ohio St. 3d 468

In 2006, John C. Lockhart Jr. was convicted of one count of rape (life sentence) and three counts of gross sexual imposition (GSI) (four years each), with two GSI terms imposed consecutively and all consecutive to the life term, yielding an aggregate sentence of 18 years to life as calculated by the department.
Lockhart appealed his convictions; the Fifth District affirmed in 2008 and the Ohio Supreme Court declined review. He did not specifically challenge the sentence on that appeal.
In 2009 the trial court issued a nunc pro tunc entry to add a case history per State v. Baker; the entry made no substantive change to Lockhart’s sentence.
Lockhart subsequently pursued multiple state and federal challenges (appeals, postconviction, mandamus, federal habeas), all unsuccessful; he then filed a state-court habeas corpus petition in 2015 seeking release or a parole hearing, arguing his sentence minimum should be eight years to life rather than 18 to life.
The Sixth District dismissed the habeas petition, finding Lockhart was not entitled to immediate release because his maximum sentence remains life imprisonment and he had other adequate remedies that he had already used.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lockhart is entitled to immediate release via habeas because he has served the minimum (8 years) for certain GSI counts	Lockhart: he has served eight years and the sentence was miscomputed as 18-to-life instead of 8-to-life; thus he should be eligible for parole or release	State: Lockhart’s maximum sentence is life; he is not entitled to immediate release and habeas applies only when the maximum has expired; he has available remedies and has pursued them	Court: Denied — habeas unavailable because Lockhart is not entitled to immediate release (maximum is life) and he has had other adequate remedies
Whether habeas is available when petitioner has other adequate legal remedies that were previously pursued unsuccessfully	Lockhart: asserts sentence-computation error that requires habeas relief	State: Lockhart had multiple other remedies (appeals, postconviction, mandamus, federal habeas) and thus habeas is not appropriate	Court: Denied — prior unsuccessful remedies make extraordinary habeas relief unavailable

Heddleston v. Mack, 84 Ohio St.3d 213 (1998) (habeas available only when petitioner’s maximum sentence has expired)
Morgan v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 68 Ohio St.3d 344 (1994) (same principle limiting habeas relief to those whose maximum sentence has expired)
McAllister v. Smith, 119 Ohio St.3d 163 (2008) (habeas requires absence of other adequate remedy)
In re Complaint for Writ of Habeas Corpus for Goeller, 103 Ohio St.3d 427 (2004) (same requirement that habeas be extraordinary when other remedies exist)
State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197 (2008) (trial-court nunc pro tunc entries and required case-history procedure)
Childers v. Wingard, 83 Ohio St.3d 427 (1998) (unsuccessful invocation of plain and adequate remedies bars extraordinary relief)
State ex rel. O’Neal v. Bunting, 140 Ohio St.3d 339 (2014) (reaffirming that prior unsuccessful legal remedies preclude habeas to relitigate the same issue)
State ex rel. Lockhart v. Whitney, 130 Ohio St.3d 95 (2011) (Lockhart’s earlier mandamus/postconviction litigation history)