Junius v. EberlinJunius v. Eberlin
Barry & Feit and Gordon R. Barry; MacMillan, Sobanski & Todd, L.L.C., and Richard S. MacMillan; and Jonathan B. Cherry, Bar Counsel, for relator.
Law Office of James D. Caruso and James D. Caruso, for respondent.
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of appellant, Robert C. Junius Jr., for a writ of habeas corpus to compel his release from prison. Habeas corpus is not available to remedy claims concerning the validity of an indictment. State ex rel. Tarr v. Williams, 112 Ohio St.3d 51, 2006-Ohio-6368, 857 N.E.2d 1225, ¶ 4. Moreover, Junius‘s reliance on State v. Colon, 118 Ohio St.3d 26, 2008-Ohio-1624, 885 N.E.2d 917 (“Colon I“), is misplaced, because our holding in that case “is prospective in nature and applies only to those cases pending on the date Colon I was announced.” State v. Colon, 119 Ohio St.3d 204, 2008-Ohio-3749, 893 N.E.2d 169, ¶ 5. Insofar as Junius claims that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel, that claim is not cognizable in habeas corpus. Casey v. Hudson, 113 Ohio St.3d 166, 2007-Ohio-1257, 863 N.E.2d 171, ¶ 3. Finally, Junius had adequate legal remedies to raise his claim of actual innocence. See Shie v. Leonard (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 160, 161, 702 N.E.2d 419.
Judgment affirmed.
MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O‘CONNOR, O‘DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur.
Robert C. Junius Jr., pro se.
Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and Samuel Peterson, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.