Wills v. Turner (Slip Opinion), 150 Ohio St. 3d 379

Wills was indicted for rape in 1988, pleaded not guilty, and was released on bond; bond was revoked in 1989 but he was not arrested until 2003.
In 2004 Wills pleaded guilty to an amended rape charge and was sentenced to 10–25 years; his sentence expires in 2028.
In April 2016 Wills filed a habeas corpus petition in the Third District Court of Appeals challenging the charging instrument and his sentence.
The warden moved to dismiss; the court of appeals dismissed the petition for failure to comply with statutory filing requirements and because Wills’s claims were not cognizable in habeas corpus.
Wills argued he should have been sentenced under the law in effect at the time of his 2004 plea and that the court lacked jurisdiction because the state never filed a complaint or properly sworn affidavit.
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed, holding sentencing errors and failure-to-file-complaint claims were not cognizable in habeas, and Wills had not met mandatory filing requirements for habeas petitions by inmates.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Wills may use habeas corpus to challenge that his sentence should have been calculated under 2004 law rather than 1988 law	Wills: sentencing law at time of plea (2004) applied and would yield a shorter sentence	Warden: sentencing-error claims are nonjurisdictional and not cognizable in habeas	Court: Held sentencing errors are not jurisdictional and not cognizable in habeas corpus
Whether habeas lies because no criminal complaint or properly sworn affidavit was filed	Wills: absence of a complaint/affidavit deprived court of jurisdiction	Warden: failure to file a complaint is not a jurisdictional defect where conviction was on an indictment	Court: Held lack of complaint is not cognizable in habeas when defendant was convicted on an indictment
Whether petition should be dismissed for failure to attach required documents (commitment papers, affidavit of prior filings, affidavits of indigency)	Wills: claimed he filed required attachments or sought leniency due to pro se status	Warden: petition omitted statutorily required attachments; noncompliance is fatal	Court: Held statutory filing requirements are mandatory; noncompliance warrants dismissal
Whether pro se status excuses compliance with filing statutes	Wills: asked for leniency because he is pro se	Warden: pro se status does not excuse statutory compliance	Court: Held pro se litigants are held to same procedural standards as represented litigants

Appenzeller v. Miller, 136 Ohio St.3d 378 (2013) (habeas lies only to challenge jurisdiction; nonjurisdictional errors generally not cognizable)
Majoros v. Collins, 64 Ohio St.3d 442 (1992) (sentencing errors are not jurisdictional and not cognizable in habeas)
State ex rel. Jackson v. Brigano, 88 Ohio St.3d 180 (2000) (failure to file a criminal complaint cannot be remedied by habeas when conviction was on an indictment)
State ex rel. White v. Bechtel, 99 Ohio St.3d 11 (2003) (noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25 is a sufficient basis to dismiss an inmate's petition)
State ex rel. Fuller v. Mengel, 100 Ohio St.3d 352 (2003) (pro se litigants are held to same procedural standards as counsel-represented litigants)