State ex rel. Steele v. Eppinger (Slip Opinion), 147 Ohio St. 3d 404

In 2006, Tracee Steele was indicted in Cuyahoga County on a 13-count indictment (gross sexual imposition and related offenses).
Prosecutors later obtained a second indictment alleging the same victim, facts, and circumstances but charging 11 counts; the court noted both indictments before trial.
The state moved to dismiss one indictment; the trial court granted the motion and Steele pleaded guilty to five counts in the second indictment and received a 15-year sentence.
In 2015 Steele filed a habeas corpus petition asserting the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the first indictment had been dismissed with prejudice; he argued res judicata barred the reindictment.
The Ninth District construed the petition as raising a double-jeopardy claim (not cognizable in habeas) and dismissed the petition.
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed, holding the first indictment was not dismissed on the merits and thus res judicata did not bar the subsequent prosecution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether res judicata barred the second indictment	Steele: first indictment was dismissed with prejudice; same facts — res judicata precludes reindictment	State: the first indictment was not dismissed on the merits; dismissal was to avoid double jeopardy, so res judicata doesn't apply	Court: Held res judicata did not apply because the first indictment was not dismissed on the merits
Whether habeas corpus is a proper vehicle for a double-jeopardy claim	Steele: framed relief as res judicata, not double jeopardy	State: double-jeopardy claims are not cognizable in habeas corpus	Court: to the extent petition alleges double jeopardy, such claims are not cognizable in habeas corpus

Elersic v. Wilson, 101 Ohio St.3d 417, 805 N.E.2d 1127 (Ohio 2004) (double-jeopardy claims are not cognizable in habeas corpus)
Howard v. Randle, 95 Ohio St.3d 281, 767 N.E.2d 268 (Ohio 2002) (double-jeopardy precedent regarding habeas relief)