State ex rel. Whitt v. Harris (Slip Opinion), 2019 Ohio 4113

In 2009 a Coshocton County grand jury indicted Stephen H. Whitt on four counts for rapes and sexual-battery offenses against his wife's granddaughter (two rape counts, two sexual-battery counts).
Whitt was convicted after a bench trial; the Fifth District affirmed convictions but remanded for resentencing; on remand the sexual-battery counts were merged into the rape counts for sentencing and the appellate court affirmed.
Whitt filed a habeas-corpus petition in the Twelfth District claiming the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the alleged offenses occurred outside Coshocton County (one count allegedly in Delaware County, one in Pennsylvania, one unlocated, one in Tennessee or Kentucky).
The warden moved for summary judgment; the court of appeals denied the writ on res judicata grounds and the denial was appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court affirmed: Whitt’s out-of-county/jurisdiction and venue claims were either barred by res judicata, not cognizable in habeas, or would not entitle him to immediate release.

Issue	Whitt's Argument	Harris's Argument	Held
Whether Coshocton court lacked jurisdiction over count two (rape alleged in Pennsylvania)	Count two occurred entirely in Pennsylvania so Ohio court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction	Whitt already raised this jurisdictional argument on direct appeal; claim is barred by res judicata	Barred by res judicata (claim previously litigated)
Whether venue error (count one allegedly in Delaware County) voids conviction	Trial should have been in the county where the crime occurred (Delaware), not Coshocton	Venue is not jurisdictional, must be raised on direct appeal, and is not cognizable in habeas	Venue challenge is not jurisdictional and is barred in habeas (res judicata/waiver)
Whether failure to prove the offense occurred in Ohio (count three, location unknown) defeats jurisdiction	State failed to prove the crime occurred in Ohio, so conviction is void	This is essentially a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, which cannot be raised in habeas	Not cognizable in habeas (sufficiency challenge)
Even if some convictions vacated, whether Whitt is entitled to immediate release	Vacating counts would void convictions and require release	Rape convictions (counts one and two) carry life terms not yet fully served; vacating merged sexual-battery counts would not entitle immediate release	Habeas unavailable because petitioner is not entitled to immediate release; relief would not secure release

State ex rel. Cannon, 155 Ohio St.3d 213, 120 N.E.3d 776 (2018) (habeas requires unlawful restraint and entitlement to immediate release)
Heddleston v. Mack, 84 Ohio St.3d 213, 702 N.E.2d 1198 (1998) (habeas generally available only after maximum sentence has expired)
Billiter v. Banks, 135 Ohio St.3d 426, 988 N.E.2d 556 (2013) (extraordinary writ unavailable if adequate ordinary remedy exists)
Leyman v. Bradshaw, 146 Ohio St.3d 522, 59 N.E.3d 1236 (2016) (exception: habeas may remedy judgments void for lack of jurisdiction)
Gaskins v. Shiplevy, 74 Ohio St.3d 149, 656 N.E.2d 1282 (1995) (same: jurisdictional-void exception to adequate-remedy rule)
State ex rel. Rash v. Jackson, 102 Ohio St.3d 145, 807 N.E.2d 344 (2004) (habeas cannot be used to obtain successive review of issues already litigated)
Wells v. Hudson, 113 Ohio St.3d 308, 865 N.E.2d 46 (2007) (res judicata bars habeas claims litigated on direct appeal)
Cook v. Maxwell, 2 Ohio St.2d 107, 206 N.E.2d 558 (1965) (failure to prove venue must be raised on direct appeal; not cognizable in habeas)
State ex rel. Tarr v. Williams, 112 Ohio St.3d 51, 857 N.E.2d 1225 (2006) (habeas not a vehicle to challenge sufficiency of the evidence)
State ex rel. Jackson v. McFaul, 73 Ohio St.3d 185, 652 N.E.2d 746 (1995) (habeas lies only if petitioner is entitled to immediate release)
Brooks v. Kelly, 144 Ohio St.3d 322, 43 N.E.3d 385 (2015) (inmate serving life not entitled to habeas relief if maximum term not yet served)