State ex rel. Harsh v. Sheets

• Decision Date: 31 May 2012
• Docket Number: No. 2012–0093.,2012–0093.
• Citation: 2012 -Ohio- 2368,970 N.E.2d 926,132 Ohio St.3d 198
• Parties: The STATE ex rel. HARSH, Appellant, v. SHEETS, Warden, Appellee.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

132 Ohio St.3d 198

970 N.E.2d 926

2012 -Ohio- 2368

The STATE ex rel. HARSH, Appellant,

v.SHEETS, Warden, Appellee.

No. 2012–0093.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted May 23, 2012.

Decided May 31, 2012.

Robert Harsh, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

[Ohio St.3d 198]{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of appellant, Robert Harsh, for a writ of habeas corpus. Harsh previously unsuccessfully raised many of his same claims in his direct appeal, State v. Harsh, Butler App. No. CA2007–03–083, so res judicata bars him from using habeas corpus to obtain a successive appellate review of the same claims. See Roberts v. Knab, 131 Ohio St.3d 60, 2012-Ohio-56, 960 N.E.2d 457, ¶ 1.

{¶ 2} Moreover, because Harsh either raised or could have raised his claims in three previous state habeas corpus cases, res judicata also bars him from filing a successive habeas corpus petition. Nickelson v. Knab, 131 Ohio St.3d 199, 2012-Ohio-579, 963 N.E.2d 154, ¶ 1. Like the court of appeals in this case, we similarly dismissed a successive habeas corpus petition filed by Harsh in 2011. Harsh v. Knab, 128 Ohio St.3d 1498, 2011-Ohio-2420, 947 N.E.2d 681.

{¶ 3} Finally, Harsh's claims are not cognizable in habeas corpus, and he had an adequate remedy by way of appeal to raise his claims. See [Ohio St.3d 199]Smith v. Smith, 123 Ohio St.3d 145, 2009-Ohio-4691, 914 N.E.2d 1036, ¶ 1 (claim that jury-verdict forms did not list essential elements of criminal offense); Haynes v. Voorhies, 110 Ohio St.3d 243, 2006-Ohio-4355, 852 N.E.2d 1198, ¶ 5 (claim challenging validity of amendment to an indictment); State ex rel. Austin v. Knab, 127 Ohio St.3d 118, 2010-Ohio-4982, 936 N.E.2d 958, ¶ 1 (claim of nonjurisdictional sentencing errors); Webber v. Kelly, 120 Ohio St.3d 440, 2008-Ohio-6695, 900 N.E.2d 175, ¶ 8 (claim challenging sufficiency of the evidence); Keith v. Bobby, 117 Ohio St.3d 470, 2008-Ohio-1443, 884 N.E.2d 1067, ¶ 15 (claims of fraud upon the court and prosecutorial misconduct).

Judgment affirmed.

O'CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O'DONNELL, LANZINGER, CUPP, and McGEE BROWN, JJ., concur.