THE STATE EX REL. BATES, APPELLANT, v. EPPINGER, WARDEN, APPELLEE.
No. 2016-0283
Supreme Court of Ohio
Submitted August 16, 2016—Decided October 26, 2016.
147 Ohio St.3d 355 | 2016-Ohio-7453 | 65 N.E.3d 746
{¶ 1} Wе affirm the Ninth District Court of Appeals’ dismissal of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by appellant, Robert L. Bates.
{¶ 2} In 2002, Bates was indicted on one count of aggravated murder with firearm specifications. A jury did not find Bates guilty of aggravated murder but found him guilty of the lesser offense of murder and guilty of the specifications. The trial court sentenced Bates to 15 years to life in prison for the murder and 8 years of aсtual incarceration for the specifications, tо run consecutively to the murder sentence. The Tenth District Cоurt of Appeals affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Bates, 10th Dist. Frаnklin No. 03AP-893, 2004-Ohio-4224, 2004 WL 1790068.
{¶ 3} On September 9, 2015, Bates filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the court of appeals. In his petition, Bates argued that the jury‘s failing to
{¶ 4} On October 9, 2015, appellee, Warden LaShann Eppinger, filed a motion to dismiss. The court of appeals dismissed Bates‘s pеtition, finding that Bates had failed to comply with the mandatory rеquirements of
{¶ 5} We affirm the court of appeals’ judgment.
{¶ 6} Bates attempted to amend his complaint, but a later filing of the proper statement does not cure the defect. Id. at ¶ 9; Fuqua v. Williams, 100 Ohio St.3d 211, 2003-Ohio-5533, 797 N.E.2d 982, ¶ 9; State ex rel. Hall v. Mohr, 140 Ohio St.3d 297, 2014-Ohio-3735, 17 N.E.3d 581, ¶ 4.
{¶ 7} Moreover, Bates‘s argument on the merits is that his cоnviction was improper because the lesser includеd offense of which he was convicted did not appеar on the indictment. But we have held that habeas is not avаilable to challenge the validity or sufficiency of an indictment; such an argument must be raised on direct appeal. State ex rel. Arroyo v. Sloan, 142 Ohio St.3d 541, 2015-Ohio-2081, 33 N.E.3d 56, ¶ 5; State ex rel. Hadlock v. McMackin, 61 Ohio St.3d 433, 434, 575 N.E.2d 184 (1991) (“A defendant may challenge the sufficiency of the indictmеnt only by a direct appeal, and not through habeas corpus“).
{¶ 8} Moreover, ”
{¶ 9} Accоrdingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
O‘CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O‘DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, and O‘NEILL, JJ., concur.
FRENCH, J., not participating.
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Jerri L. Fosnaught, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
