83 Ohio St. 3d 519 | Ohio | 1998
Beaver asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his habeas corpus petition. For the reasons that follow, however, Beaver’s contentions lack merit.
First, Beaver’s claim concerning the grand jury selection process attacks the validity and sufficiency of his indictment and is nonjurisdictional. Thornton v. Russell (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 93, 94, 694 N.E.2d 464, 465; State ex rel. Beaucamp v. Lazaroff (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 237, 238, 673 N.E.2d 1273, 1274.
Second, as the court of appeals concluded in Beaver’s direct appeal, Beaver invited any error arising from the felonious assault charge because his trial counsel requested a jury instruction on that charge.
Third, Beaver’s claims of double jeopardy and erroneous jury instructions are not cognizable in habeas corpus. Borsick v. State (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 258, 259, 652 N.E.2d 951, 952; State ex rel. Richard v. Seidner (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 149, 152, 666 N.E.2d 1134, 1136.
Finally, the fact that Beaver has already invoked alternate remedies, e.g., appeal and postconviction relief, to raise some of these same issues does not entitle him to extraordinary relief. See State ex rel. Sampson v. Parrott (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 92, 93, 694 N.E.2d 463.
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
. Whether felonious assault is a lesser included offense of murder or attempted murder has not yet been resolved. See, e.g., State v. Williams (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 1262, 1262-1263, 693 N.E.2d 282 (Cook, J., dissenting).
