State ex rel. Rackley v. Sloan, 2015–1364.

• Citation: 150 Ohio St.3d 11,78 N.E.3d 819,2016 Ohio 3416
• Decision Date: 16 June 2016
• Docket Number: No. 2015–1364.,2015–1364.
• Parties: The STATE ex rel. RACKLEY, Appellant, v. SLOAN, Warden, Appellee.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

150 Ohio St.3d 11

78 N.E.3d 819

2016 Ohio 3416

The STATE ex rel. RACKLEY, Appellant,

v.SLOAN, Warden, Appellee.

No. 2015–1364.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted Feb. 23, 2016.

Decided June 16, 2016.

Steven L. Rackley, pro se.

Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Jerri L. Fosnaught, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Steven L. Rackley, appeals from the judgment of the Eleventh District Court of Appeals dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Because he has, and has used, alternative remedies at law to raise his habeas claims, we affirm.

Relevant Background

{¶ 2} In April 2013, Rackley pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter and aggravated robbery and the trial court sentenced him to 19 years in prison.State v. Rackley, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102962, 2015-Ohio-4504, 2015 WL 6550730. He is currently serving his prison sentence at the Lake Erie Correctional Institution.

{¶ 3} In March 2015, Rackley filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Eleventh District Court of Appeals. He argued that he did not receive adequate notice of the charges against him, the municipal court failed to advise him of his constitutional rights, no proper arrest warrant had been issued and his case was improperly bound over to the common pleas court, and his indictment was improperly amended. He further claimed that he was deprived of his right to counsel at the indictment stage, his guilty plea was involuntary and not supported by sufficient evidence, a written plea agreement was never executed, his right to a speedy trial was violated, and his trial attorney was ineffective for various failures. The court of appeals dismissed the petition because he had an adequate remedy "in the form of an appeal and a postconviction motion for relief to raise such alleged errors." 2015-Ohio-2984, 2015 WL 4510450, ¶ 7.

{¶ 4} In this appeal of right, Rackley challenges the court of appeals' judgment and reasserts his habeas claims. He also requests that this court hold an evidentiary hearing on his claims and has filed a motion requesting that this court suspend bail and the execution of his sentence. In addition to responding to Rackley's substantive claims, appellee, Warden Brigham Sloan, argues that we should order Rackley to pay any filing fees associated with this appeal.

Analysis

{¶ 5} We affirm the court of appeals' judgment dismissing Rackley's habeas petition. The claims for which he seeks relief are not cognizable in habeas corpus, and he possessed an alternative remedy at law to assert those claims.

{¶ 6} Habeas corpus is not available to challenge any defect " ‘caused by the alleged failure to file criminal complaints or the claimed impropriety of the [trial] court's assumption of jurisdiction over [criminal] charges.’ " Harris v. Bagley, 97 Ohio St.3d 98, 2002-Ohio-5369, 776 N.E.2d 490, ¶ 3, quoting Taylor v. Mitchell, 88 Ohio St.3d 453, 454, 727 N.E.2d 905 (2000). " ‘The manner by which an accused is charged with a crime is procedural rather than jurisdictional, and after a conviction for crimes charged in an indictment, the judgment binds the defendant for the crime for which he was convicted.’ " State ex rel. Nelson v. Griffin, 103 Ohio St.3d 167, 2004-Ohio-4754, 814 N.E.2d 866, ¶ 6, quoting Orr v. Mack, 83 Ohio St.3d 429, 430, 700 N.E.2d 590 (1998). An illegal arrest "does not affect the validity of subsequent proceedings based on a valid indictment nor furnish [a] ground for release by habeas corpus after conviction." Krauter v. Maxwell, 3 Ohio St.2d 142, 144, 209 N.E.2d 571 (1965).

{¶ 7} Rackley was charged in an indictment issued by the Cuyahoga County Grand Jury, and he pleaded guilty and was ultimately sentenced on that indictment. State v. Rackley, 2015-Ohio-4504, 2015 WL 6550730, ¶ 3–4. Therefore, the trial court possessed the requisite jurisdiction to accept his guilty pleas and sentence him to prison. See R.C. 2931.03.

{¶ 8} In addition, habeas corpus will not lie for claims challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, State ex rel. Tarr v. Williams, 112 Ohio St.3d 51, 2006-Ohio-6368, 857 N.E.2d 1225, ¶ 4, or for claims challenging the validity of a guilty plea, Pollock v. Morris, 35 Ohio St.3d 117, 518 N.E.2d 1205 (1988). Rackley alleges many deficiencies and failures on the part of his trial counsel and also alleges that the trial court denied his right to counsel at the indictment stage, but "[c]laims involving the ineffective assistance of counsel or the alleged denial of the right to counsel are not cognizable in habeas corpus," Bozsik v. Hudson, 110 Ohio St.3d 245, 2006-Ohio-4356, 852 N.E.2d 1200, ¶ 7.

{¶ 9} Habeas corpus is also not available to challenge the validity or sufficiency of an indictment, as such a claim is "nonjurisdictional in nature, and should [be] raised in an appeal of [a] criminal conviction rather than in habeas corpus." State ex rel. Raglin v. Brigano, 82 Ohio St.3d 410, 696 N.E.2d 585 (1998). The initial indictment charged Rackley with aggravated murder, and he entered a guilty plea to a reduced charge of involuntary manslaughter, State v. Rackley at ¶ 3–4, which is a lesser-included offense, State v. Thomas, 40 Ohio St.3d 213, 533 N.E.2d 286 (1988), paragraph one of the syllabus. "An accused can properly plead guilty to a lesser included offense of the charge for which he was indicted, and habeas corpus will not lie to challenge a conviction on this plea." Gunnell v. Lazaroff, 90 Ohio St.3d 76, 77, 734 N.E.2d 829 (2000). And finally, "[a] claimed violation of a criminal defendant's right to a speedy trial is not cognizable in habeas corpus." Travis v. Bagley, 92 Ohio St.3d 322, 323, 750 N.E.2d 166 (2001).

{¶ 10} Moreover, the court of appeals correctly determined that Rackley has or had an adequate remedy at law in the...