State ex rel., John C. Lockhart, Jr. v. Edward Shelton, Warden, et al.
Court of Appeals No. L-15-1018
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY
Decided: April 21, 2015
[Cite as State ex rel. Lockhart v. Shelton, 2015-Ohio-1569.]
OSOWIK, J.
Petitioner v. Respondents
* * * * *
John C. Lockhart, Jr., pro se.
Mike DeWine, Ohio Attorney General, and Maura O’Neill Jaite, Senior Assistant Attorney General, for respondents.
* * * * *
OSOWIK, J.
{¶ 1} Petitioner, John C. Lockhart, Jr., had filed a “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus” seeking his immediate release from the Toledo Correctional Institution.1 In
{¶ 2} In 2006, petitioner was convicted by the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas of one count of rape involving a victim less than ten years of age, in violation of
{¶ 3} Petitioner filed a direct appeal of his conviction and sentence, but he did not raise the issue of the life sentence for rape at that time. His convictions and sentence were affirmed on January 9, 2008, in State v. Lockhart, 5th Dist. Delaware No. 06CAA100080, 2008-Ohio-57. On December 17, 2009, the trial court, acting sua sponte, issued a nunc pro tunc judgment entry and included case history pursuant to State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197, 2008-Ohio-3330, 893 N.E.2d 163. Petitioner filed a “Motion to Correct Status of Void Sentence Entry” on October 19, 2010, which the trial court denied.
{¶ 4} On March 1, 2011, petitioner appealed the nunc pro tunc judgment entry and filed a motion for leave to file a delayed appeal in the Fifth District Court of Appeals, which were denied on April 22, 2011. On December 10, 2012, petitioner again attempted to correct his sentence, arguing that he should have been given a prison term of “three (3) to ten (10) years [for rape] as mandated and set forth in
{¶ 5} A petition for habeas corpus is available to any person who is “unlawfully restrained of his liberty * * * to inquire into the cause of such imprisonment, restraint, or deprivation.”
(A) That the person in whose behalf the application is made is imprisoned, or restrained of his liberty;
(B) The officer, or name of the person by whom the prisoner is so confined or restrained; * * *
(C) The place where the prisoner is so imprisoned or restrained, if known;
(D) A copy of the commitment or cause of detention of such person shall be exhibited, if it can be procured without impairing the efficiency of the remedy * * *.
{¶ 6} In addition to the above, a petitioner who is an inmate acting pro se must comply with
{¶ 7} Petitioner has complied with the above requirements. Accordingly, we will now address the merits of the petition.
{¶ 8} In support of his petition, Lockhart states that the trial court gave him a “single life sentence” for rape, pursuant former
{¶ 9} Habeas corpus is not the proper remedy to address every concern a prisoner has about his legal rights or status.” Rodgers v. Capots, 67 Ohio St.3d 435, 619 N.E.2d 685 (1993). It is an extraordinary writ which is only available in cases where the petitioner can “demonstrate a jurisdictional error or the unlawful restraint of a person’s liberty and the lack of any adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.” Harris v. Larose, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2014-T-0089, 2015-Ohio-963, ¶ 5. For example, a writ of habeas corpus is not appropriate where the petitioner claims that his parole was improperly calculated, unless he is also entitled to immediate release. Johnson v. Crutchfield, 140 Ohio St.3d 485, 2014-Ohio-3653, 20 N.E.3d 676, ¶ 6-7. See also State v. Wilburn, 4th Dist. Lawrence No. 98CA47, 1999 WL 1281507 (Dec. 22, 1999); Ridenour v. Randle, 96 Ohio St.3d 90, 2002-Ohio-3606, 77 N.E.2d 859, ¶ 7.
{¶ 10} On consideration, this court finds that neither a “single life sentence,” nor a sentence of ten years to life for rape is encompassed within the eight-year sentence that
{¶ 11} The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed at petitioner’s costs.
{¶ 12} To the Clerk of Court:
{¶ 13} The Sheriff of Lucas County shall immediately serve upon the respondents by personal service a copy of this decision dismissing the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed on January 28, 2015, pursuant to
{¶ 14} The clerk is further directed to immediately serve upon all other parties a copy of this decision in a manner prescribed by
{¶ 15} It is so ordered.
Writ denied.
Arlene Singer, J.
Thomas J. Osowik, J.
Stephen A. Yarbrough, P.J.
CONCUR.
_______________________________
JUDGE
_______________________________
JUDGE
_______________________________
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/?source=6.