Wilson v. Rogers, 68 Ohio St. 3d 130

Wilson v. Rogers

68 Ohio St. 3d 130

Ohio

1993

Check Treatment

WILSON, APPELLANT, v. ROGERS, APPELLEE.

No. 93-835

Supreme Court of Ohio

Submitted September 28, 1993—Decided December 29, 1993

[Cite as Wilson v. Rogers (1993), 68 Ohio St.3d 130.]

Kennecorp Mtge. Brokers, Inc. v. Country Club Convalescent Hosp., Inc. (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 173, 610 N.E.2d 987.

Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded for reinstatement of the trial court‘s judgment.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

MOYER, C.J., A.W. SWEENEY, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur.

John Wilson, pro se.

Lee Fisher, Attorney General, and John J. Gideon, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Per Curiam. The court of appeals correctly dismissed the petition in this case and its judgment is affirmed. The appellant raises the same three issues on appeal that he raised below. However, that court correctly concluded that habeas corpus was unavailable to review allegations of prosecutorial misconduct,

Ellis v. McMackin (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 161, 602 N.E.2d 611; the credibility of evidence used at trial, ; and the sufficiency of an indictment, .

On appeal, appellant also argues that since eleven of the twenty indictments were dismissed by the trial court, all twenty indictments should be dismissed. Appellant contends that when the trial court dismissed the indictments, all indictments should have been dismissed under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, arguing that double jeopardy applies to the remaining counts against him. However, “[t]he Double Jeopardy Clauses contained in the Ohio and the United States Constitutions protect an accused from multiple prosecutions and multiple punishments for the same offense.” (Emphasis added.)

Shearman v. Van Camp (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 468, 469, 597 N.E.2d 88, 92, citing . The counts on which the appellant was convicted were separate offenses from the counts that were dismissed. Therefore, double jeopardy would not apply. Even if it did apply, double jeopardy is not a ground for post-conviction relief in habeas corpus. .

None of appellant‘s arguments raises a jurisdictional claim. When the petitioner does not attack the jurisdiction of the court, habeas corpus will be denied. R.C. 2725.05;

Stahl v. Shoemaker (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 351, 4 O.O.3d 485, 364 N.E.2d 286.

Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

MOYER, C.J., A.W. SWEENEY, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur.