State ex rel. Menton v. Sloan
2017 Ohio 7661
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Charles Menton was convicted by a jury in Mahoning County of aggravated burglary, kidnapping, and two counts of rape and sentenced on March 8, 2007 to four consecutive 10-year terms (40 years total).
- He unsuccessfully appealed; Ohio Supreme Court declined review. His sentence runs through 2046.
- Menton filed a prior habeas petition in this court on January 17, 2017 that was dismissed; he filed the instant habeas petition on April 11, 2017 seeking immediate release, alleging sham legal process, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and prosecutorial misconduct.
- The respondent (Warden Sloan) moved to dismiss and/or for summary judgment; Menton did not file an opposition brief.
- The court found procedural defects: Menton failed to (1) disclose prior civil actions in the required affidavit under R.C. 2969.25(A) and (2) attach complete commitment papers (only provided the first page of the sentencing entry).
- On the merits, the court held that Menton’s claims (identity of perpetrator, prosecutorial misconduct, defective indictment) do not implicate subject-matter jurisdiction, were reviewable on direct appeal, and are barred by res judicata.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compliance with R.C. 2969.25(A) affidavit requirement | Menton did not list his prior habeas petition; impliedly argues petition should proceed | Sloan argues affidavit is incomplete and statutory requirements are mandatory | Court: Petition defective for failing to disclose prior filing; dismissal required |
| Requirement to attach commitment papers (R.C. 2725.04(D)) | Menton attached only first page of sentencing entry | Sloan contends full commitment papers are mandatory and omission is fatal | Court: Petition defective for incomplete commitment papers; dismissal required |
| Subject-matter jurisdiction of trial court | Menton contends court lacked jurisdiction because he did not commit crimes and indictment/charging process was improper | Sloan argues identity and charging procedures are elements/procedural matters, not jurisdictional | Court: Identity/indictment defects are procedural; do not deprive subject-matter jurisdiction; habeas unavailable |
| Prosecutorial misconduct / perjured testimony | Menton alleges sham process, selective prosecution, conspiracy, and perjury by witnesses | Sloan notes these are appellate issues and available on direct appeal; not cognizable in habeas | Court: Claims are reviewable on direct appeal (and res judicata now); not grounds for habeas relief |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Nelson v. Griffin, 103 Ohio St.3d 167 (2004) (habeas is proper remedy when present incarceration is unlawful)
- Fuqua v. Williams, 100 Ohio St.3d 211 (2003) (R.C. 2969.25(A) applies to habeas filings)
- State ex rel. Walker v. Sloan, 147 Ohio St.3d 353 (2016) (requirements of R.C. 2969.25 are mandatory; failure mandates dismissal)
- In re Complaint for Writ of Habeas Corpus for Goeller, 103 Ohio St.3d 427 (2004) (habeas unavailable when adequate remedy at law exists)
- Shroyer v. Banks, 123 Ohio St.3d 88 (2009) (habeas not available to challenge validity of an indictment)
- State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93 (1996) (failure to raise claims on direct appeal may be barred by res judicata)