State ex rel. Martre v. Watson, 2023 Ohio 749

May 25, 2017: Martre arrested on domestic-violence charge; Toledo PD searched his cellphone and photos led to indictment for gross sexual imposition, pandering sexually oriented material involving a minor, and illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material.
Martre pleaded no contest; trial court denied his motion to withdraw the plea and sentenced him to 12 years; the Third District affirmed on direct appeal.
March 2022: Martre filed a habeas-corpus petition in the Third District seeking release, arguing (1) the Allen County grand jury lacked jurisdiction to indict offenses allegedly committed in Lucas County and (2) two counts failed to charge a criminal offense (did not allege lewdness).
The Third District dismissed the petition for failure to state a cognizable habeas claim, finding the claims attacked the indictment (not court jurisdiction) and that Martre had an adequate remedy on direct appeal; his maximum sentence had not expired.
Martre sought to supplement his reply brief in this Court (motion denied). The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals, holding indictment defects are not jurisdictional and not cognizable in habeas; sua sponte dismissal was permissible.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Martre)	Defendant's Argument (Warden)	Held
Whether Allen County grand jury lacked jurisdiction to indict offenses committed in Lucas County	Allen County indictment is invalid; a Common Pleas court obtains jurisdiction only by a valid county grand-jury indictment for offenses committed in that county	Martre confuses jurisdiction with venue/indictment validity; challenge is non-jurisdictional	Indictment defects do not deprive the court of jurisdiction; habeas not available; claim for appeal, not habeas
Whether indictment failed to allege criminal element (lewdness) so counts charge noncriminal conduct	Counts charged photographing a nude child without alleging lewdness, so they do not state criminal offenses	Sufficiency of an indictment is non-jurisdictional and must be raised on direct appeal	Sufficiency defects are not cognizable in habeas; reject claim
Whether Third District erred by dismissing without a Civ.R. 12(B) motion or response	Warden did not formally move to dismiss or respond; dismissal improper	Courts may dismiss sua sponte when petition fails to state a claim	Sua sponte dismissal is permissible and was proper; reject claim

State ex rel. Cannon v. Mohr, 155 Ohio St.3d 213, 2018-Ohio-4184, 120 N.E.3d 776 (habeas requires unlawful restraint and entitlement to immediate release)
Heddleston v. Mack, 84 Ohio St.3d 213, 702 N.E.2d 1198 (habeas generally available only after maximum sentence expires)
Billiter v. Banks, 135 Ohio St.3d 426, 2013-Ohio-1719, 988 N.E.2d 556 (habeas not available when an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law exists)
Leyman v. Bradshaw, 146 Ohio St.3d 522, 2016-Ohio-1093, 59 N.E.3d 1236 (exception for habeas when judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction)
Gaskins v. Shiplevy, 74 Ohio St.3d 149, 656 N.E.2d 1282 (same principle on void judgments for lack of jurisdiction)
State ex rel. Sands v. Bunting, 150 Ohio St.3d 325, 2017-Ohio-5697, 81 N.E.3d 459 (defects in an indictment do not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction)
State ex rel. Tarr v. Williams, 112 Ohio St.3d 51, 2006-Ohio-6368, 857 N.E.2d 1225 (indictment validity is not cognizable in habeas)
McDougald v. Bowerman, 161 Ohio St.3d 268, 2020-Ohio-3942, 162 N.E.3d 762 (adequate remedy to challenge indictment is direct appeal)
Smith v. Jago, 58 Ohio St.2d 298, 389 N.E.2d 1138 (sufficiency of an indictment does not affect court’s jurisdiction)
Lundeen v. Turner, 164 Ohio St.3d 159, 2021-Ohio-1533, 172 N.E.3d 150 (approves sua sponte dismissal when warranted)
Steele v. Foley, 164 Ohio St.3d 540, 2021-Ohio-2073, 173 N.E.3d 1209 (review of habeas dismissal is de novo)