Estep v. StateEstep v. State
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: David Estep, No. 547-929, P.O. Box 7010, Chillicothe, Ohio 45601, Pro Se
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: Richard Cordray, Ohio Attorney General, and M. Scott Criss, Ohio Assistant Attorney General, 150 East Gay Street, 16th Floor, Columbus, Ohio 43215
ABELE, J.
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a Ross County Common Pleas Court judgment that dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by David Estep, petitioner below and appellant herein.
{¶ 2} Appellant assigns the following errors for review:
FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
“THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ERRED WHEN IT DISMISSED APPELLANT‘S PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR FAILURE TO VERIFY.”
“THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS VIOLATED PETITIONER‘S RIGHTS UNDER THE FIFTH, SIXTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS WHEN IT ALLOWED TO STAND THE VOID JUDGEMENT OF A COURT THAT LACKED SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION.”
{¶ 3} In 2007, appellant pled guilty to felonious assault (sentenced to four years in prison), kidnapping (sentenced to six years in prison), tampering with evidence (sentenced to one year in prison) and aggravated robbery (sentenced to four years in prison). All sentences were ordered to be served consecutively with one another for a total term of fifteen years imprisonment.
{¶ 4} On August 5, 2008, appellant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant alleged that the sentencing court had no jurisdiction over him because the Marion County Grand Jury‘s indictment was defective. The State filed a
{¶ 5} We jointly consider the two assignments of error which both posit that the trial court erred by dismissing appellant‘s petition for habeas corpus. When deciding a
{¶ 6} Turning now to the petition itself, we note that the trial court correctly concluded that the petition was not verified (notarized) as
{¶ 7} Appellant is not excused from following statutes simply because he is a layperson and is acting without counsel. If that were so, then no layperson would ever be bound by the criminal code. Moreover, in a motion for an extension of time that he
{¶ 8} While this alone is enough to justify dismissal, the trial court was also correct that habeas corpus cannot be used to challenge an indictment‘s alleged deficiencies. Galloway v. Money, 100 Ohio St.3d 74, 2003-Ohio-5060, 796 N.E.2d 528, ¶¶3 & 6; Turner v. Ishee, 98 Ohio St.3d 411, 2003-Ohio-1671, 786 N.E.2d 54, at ¶7. Appellant counters that the indictment failed to set forth a mens rea for any of the offenses and that this amounts to “structural error” which should be reviewed on habeas corpus. We disagree. This argument has been considered and rejected twice by our colleagues on the Seventh District Court of Appeals. Junius v. Eberlin, Belmont App. No. 08BE27, 2008-Ohio-6441, at ¶¶14 & 18; Starcher v. Eberlin, Belmont App. No. 08BE19, 2008-Ohio-5042, at ¶¶4 & 18. Like them, we find nothing to warrant deviation from the Ohio Supreme Court‘s directive that these issues are not appropriate for habeas corpus review.
{¶ 9} Accordingly, for these reasons, we hereby overrule both assignments of error and affirm the trial court‘s judgment.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
JUDGMENT ENTRY
It is ordered that the judgment be affirmed and that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed.
The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Ross
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute that mandate pursuant to
Harsha, J. & McFarland, J.: Concur in Judgment & Opinion
For the Court
BY: _________________________
Peter B. Abele, Judge
NOTICE TO COUNSEL
Pursuant to Local Rule No. 14, this document constitutes a final judgment entry and the time period for further appeal commences from the date of filing with the clerk.