Bell v. McConahay

• Decision Date: 09 March 2023
• Docket Number: 2022-0418
• Citation: 2023 Ohio 693
• Parties: Bell, Appellant, v. McConahay, Warden, Appellee.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

1

2023-Ohio-693

Bell, Appellant,
v.
McConahay, Warden, Appellee.

No. 2022-0418

Supreme Court of Ohio

March 9, 2023

Submitted January 10, 2023

Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Richland County, No. 2022-CA-005.

Michael Bell, pro se.

Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Stephanie L. Watson, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Per Curiam

{¶ 1} Appellant, Michael D. Bell, appeals the Fifth District Court of Appeals' dismissal of his petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus against appellee, Tim McConahay, warden of the Mansfield Correctional Institution ("MCI"). Bell has also filed a motion to reverse and vacate the judgment against him based on

2

reasons that follow, we deny Bell's motion and affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

{¶ 2} Bell is an inmate at MCI. In 2012, a Hamilton County grand jury indicted him for murder, with a firearm specification, and for having weapons while under disability. In October 2013, Bell pleaded guilty to reduced charges of voluntary manslaughter, with a firearm specification, and to having weapons while under disability. The trial court sentenced Bell to 11 years in prison for voluntary manslaughter, 3 years for the firearm specification, and 3 years for having weapons while under disability. The trial court ordered those sentences to be served consecutively, for an aggregate sentence of 17 years. Bell did not file a direct appeal.

{¶ 3} On January 14, 2022, Bell filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Fifth District Court of Appeals. He presented several arguments to support his claim for relief.

{¶ 4} McConahay filed a motion to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), which Bell opposed. The court of appeals granted McConahay's motion to dismiss, finding that Bell's petition failed to state a valid claim for relief in habeas corpus.

{¶ 5} Bell appeals to this court as of right.

BELL'S MOTION TO REVERSE AND VACATE

{¶ 6} Bell filed a motion to reverse and vacate the judgment and conviction against him based on McConahay's alleged failure to timely file a brief in this appeal. We deny that motion because McConahay timely filed his merit brief on July 11, 2022.

ANALYSIS

{¶ 7} This court reviews de novo a court of appeals' Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal of a habeas corpus petition. State ex rel. Norris v. Wainwright, 158 Ohio St.3d 20, 2019-Ohio-4138, 139 N.E.3d 867, ¶ 5. Dismissal is appropriate if it

3

appears beyond doubt, after taking all factual allegations in the petition as true and making reasonable inferences in the petitioner's favor, that the petitioner can prove no set of facts entitling him to a writ of habeas corpus. Orr v. Schweitzer, 165 Ohio St.3d 175, 2021-Ohio-1786, 176 N.E.3d 738, ¶ 4.

{¶ 8} Generally, a writ of habeas corpus is available only when a petitioner's maximum sentence has expired and he is being held unlawfully, Leyman v. Bradshaw, 146 Ohio St.3d 522, 2016-Ohio-1093, 59 N.E.3d 1236, ¶ 8, or when the sentencing court patently and unambiguously lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, see Stever v. Wainwright, 160 Ohio St.3d 139, 2020-Ohio-1452, 154 N.E.3d 55, ¶ 8. The writ is not available when the petitioner has an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law unless the trial court's judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction. State ex rel. Davis v. Turner, 164 Ohio...