Ellis v. McMackin, 92-728
| Decision Date | 09 December 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-728,92-728 |
| Citation | 65 Ohio St.3d 161,602 N.E.2d 611 |
| Parties | ELLIS, Appellant, v. McMACKIN, Warden, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
On February 12, 1992, appellant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of Appeals for Marion County. He alleged that he was being wrongfully held pursuant to unlawful convictions on two counts of aggravated murder with the specification that he had committed aggravated murder while he had a firearm on or about his person or under his control.
Appellant's petition for writ of habeas corpus raised seven issues as follows: insufficient evidence for a conviction, illegally suppressed evidence, destruction of evidence, falsification of evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, judicial misconduct, and that all of these issues taken together and all the prosecutorial and professional misconduct amount to lack of jurisdiction.
On February 19, 1992, the court of appeals issued a journal entry that stated in part:
" * * * [T]he court finds that the issues raised by the petition are not jurisdictional in nature and therefore relief in habeas corpus is not available to petitioner."
The court of appeals dismissed appellant's petition for habeas corpus. From this judgment appellant appealed. The cause is before the court upon an appeal as of right.
Frank L. Ellis, Jr., pro se.
The court of appeals reached the correct decision in dismissing appellant's claim as not jurisdictional. Appellant's first four issues deal with evidence either used at trial, not used at trial, or allegedly fraudulently used at trial. Regardless, "this is not a ground for relief by habeas corpus, as questions of evidence must be raised by appeal." Saulsbury v. Green (1964), 175 Ohio St. 433, 434, 25 O.O.2d 445, 195 N.E.2d 787, 788.
Appellant's next issue is ineffectiveness of counsel. Again this is an issue to be appealed. Rodriguez v. Sacks (1962), 173 Ohio St. 456, 457, 20 O.O.2d 78, 184 N.E.2d 93, 94.
Appellant's next issue is judicial misconduct. This is "directed at alleged irregularities in the proceedings and not to the jurisdiction of the court and matters which would render the conviction void." Cantrell v. Maxwell (1962), 174 Ohio St. 51, 52, 21 O.O.2d 297, 186 N.E.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. May
...(1996). In general, habeas relief is available when the sentencing court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Ellis v. McMackin , 65 Ohio St.3d 161, 162, 602 N.E.2d 611 (1992) ; see also R.C. 2725.05.B. Applicability of R.C. 2152.12(G){¶ 15} The juvenile court did not comply with R.C. 2152.1......
-
King v. Dallman, CA92-09-087
...In short, when a petitioner "does not attack the jurisdiction of the court, habeas corpus does not lie." Ellis v. McMackin (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 161, 162, 602 N.E.2d 611, 612, citing Stahl, supra. Furthermore, R.C. 2725.05 provides "If it appears that a person alleged to be restrained of hi......
-
Hattie v. Anderson
...court lacked jurisdiction over him, his habeas corpus action was properly dismissed by the court of appeals. Ellis v. McMackin (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 161, 162, 602 N.E.2d 611, 612; King, However, appellant's petition was not limited to habeas corpus; he also sought a writ of mandamus. Appell......
-
Lloyd v. Robinson
...habeas corpus petition are not cognizable in habeas corpus because they can be raised on direct appeal. See Ellis v. McMackin, 65 Ohio St.3d 161, 161-162, 602 N.E.2d 611 (1992) (claim of judicial misconduct had to be raised by direct appeal rather than habeas corpus because it was not juris......