DAMIEN L. PETERSON v. KEITH FOLEY, WARDEN
C.A. No. 20CA011705
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
July 19, 2021
2021-Ohio-2455
STATE OF OHIO, COUNTY OF LORAIN ss: ORIGINAL ACTION IN HABEAS CORPUS
{1} Pеtitioner, Damien Peterson, has petitioned this Court for a writ of habeas corpus to compel Respondent, Warden Foley, to release him from custody. Warden Foley has moved to dismiss and Mr. Peterson has responded. For the following reasons, this Court grants the motion to dismiss.
{2} When this Court reviews a motion to dismiss under
{3} According to Mr. Peterson‘s рetition, he was arrested without an active arrest warrant. He was held in jail and requested a preliminary hearing. The complaint allegеs that an
{4} The complaint alleges that Mr. Peterson was arraigned at common pleas court, waived his right to a jury triаl, and was convicted following a bench trial. After he was sentenced, the Cuyahoga County Public Defender‘s Office filed an appeal to the Eighth District Court of Appeals. That appeal apparently remains pending.
{5} State habeas corpus relief is available in specific, extraordinary circumstances.
{6} As noted above, to dismiss a petition under
{7} Mr. Peterson has alleged three claims in his petition: (1) the municipal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the complaint was void, (2) the indictment was void because the counts were not included in the complaint filed in the municipal court, and (3) the municipаl court case was improperly bound over to the common pleas court. Warden Foley moved to dismiss. He argued that the claims are barred by res judicata, Mr. Peterson has an adequate remedy at law, and the issues Mr. Peterson raised are not cognizable in habeаs corpus.
Res Judicata
{8} Warden Foley moved to dismiss pursuant to
{9} In this case, however, this Court cannot evaluate whether the claims are barred by res judicata without resorting to documents or information outside the pleadings. Accordingly, this Court will not resolve this case on the basis of res judicata.
{10} The theme underlying all of Mr. Peterson‘s claims are that his judgment of conviction is void because the trial court lacked jurisdiction. As to his first claim, he alleges that the defective criminal complaint deprived the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction. Even if we accept all of his allegations as true, those defects would not render the complaint void and deprive the trial court of jurisdiction.
{11} The Ohio Supreme Court has considered two similar challenges in State v. Hobbs, 133 Ohio St.3d 43, 2012-Ohio-3886, and State v. Hoffman, 141 Ohio St.3d 428, 2014-Ohio-4795. In nеither case did the Supreme Court conclude that the allegations resulted in a void complaint or deprived the trial court of jurisdictiоn. Upon review of Mr. Peterson‘s allegations, and Supreme Court decisions directly on point, we conclude that Mr. Peterson cannot dеmonstrate that the alleged errors resulted in the complaint being void. Because the complaint was not void, habeas corpus is nоt available and any errors could be raised on direct appeal.
{12} Mr. Peterson‘s second claim is that because no comрlaint was ever filed in municipal court regarding nine counts of his indictment, all for conduct that occurred in the city of Cleveland, not the city where he alleged the void complaint discussed above was filed. He alleges that because no complaint was filed, those counts are void.
{13} The argument Mr. Peterson makes has been rejected by the Supreme Court:
{5} Any defect resulting from the alleged failure to file a criminal complaint is not cognizable in habeas corpus, because [petitioner] was convicted and sentenced upon his guilty plеa to an indictment, and the trial court had the requisite jurisdiction to try, convict, and sentence him upon the robbery offense. Boylen v. Bradshaw, 108 Ohio St.3d 181, 2006-Ohio-549, 842 N.E.2d 49, ¶ 5.
{6} Moreover, “‘[t]he manner by which an accused is charged with a crime is procedural rather than jurisdictional, and after a conviction for crimes charged in an indictment, the judgment binds the defendant for the crime for which he was convicted.‘” State ex rel. Nelson v. Griffin, 103 Ohio St.3d 167,
2004-Ohio-4754, 814 N.E.2d 866, ¶ 6, quoting Orr v. Mack (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 429, 430, 700 N.E.2d 590.
Gotel v. Gansheimer, 116 Ohio St.3d 316, 2007-Ohio-6437, ¶ 5-6. Accordingly, Mr. Peterson has not demonstrated that his judgment of сonviction is void. Appeal provides an adequate remedy to raise any alleged error.
{14} Finally, Mr. Peterson‘s third claim is that his case wаs improperly bound over from municipal court to the Cuyahoga County Grand Jury. As discussed above, this allegation about a flaw in the procеss does not render the indictment void. Gotel at ¶ 6.
Conclusion
{15} Even considering Mr. Peterson‘s allegations as true, they are insufficient to warrant habeas corpus relief. The motion to dismiss is granted, and this case is dismissed. Costs are taxed to Mr. Peterson. The clerk of courts is hereby directed to serve upon all parties not in default notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. See
LYNNE S. CALLAHAN
FOR THE COURT
HENSAL, J.
TEODOSIO, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
DAMIEN L. PETERSON, Pro Se, Petitioner.
DAVE YOST, Attorney General, and WILLIAM H. LAMB, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.