Ohio Supreme Court, 1996

McBroom v. Russell

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided November 6, 1996 · Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney

77 Ohio St. 3d 47; 671 N.E.2d 10; 1996 Ohio LEXIS 1672

Cases that cite this one

37 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Workman v. Shiplevy (Ohio 1997)
Workman v. Shiplevy (Ohio 1997)
Cummings v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. Corr., Unpublished Decision (3-5-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
Pilgrim v. Department of Rehab. Corr., Unpublished Decision (6-6-2000) (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)
State ex rel. Dozier v. Mack (Ohio 1999)
State ex rel. Dozier v. Mack (Ohio 1999)
Smith v. Mitchell (Ohio 1998)
State ex rel. Finfrock v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority (Ohio 1998)
State ex rel. Ranzy v. Coyle (Ohio 1998)
State ex rel. Wynn v. McFaul (Ohio 1998)
Shie v. Leonard (Ohio 1998)
Shie v. Leonard (Ohio 1998)
State ex rel. Wynn v. McFaul (Ohio 1998)
State ex rel. Ranzy v. Coyle (Ohio 1998)
State ex rel. Finfrock v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (Ohio 1998)
Smith v. Mitchell (Ohio 1998)
State ex rel. Lake v. Anderson (Ohio 1997)
State ex rel. Lemmon v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority (Ohio 1997)
Holloway v. Clermont County Department of Human Services (Ohio 1997)
State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio Parole Board (Ohio 1997)
Leal v. Mohr (Ohio 1997)
Leal v. Mohr (Ohio 1997)
State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio Parole Bd. (Ohio 1997)
Holloway v. Clermont Cty. Dept. of Human Serv. (Ohio 1997)
State ex rel. Lemmon v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (Ohio 1997)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

In his sole proposition of law, McBroom asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his habeas corpus petition. In order to withstand dismissal, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus must conform to R.C. 2725.04 and state with particularity the extraordinary circumstances entitling the petitioner to the writ. See, generally, State ex rel. Jackson v. McFaul (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 185, 187, 652 N.E.2d 746, 748.

As the court of appeals correctly held, McBroom merely challenged the sufficiency of the indictment, which is not cognizable in habeas corpus. Luna v. Russell (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 561, 562, 639 N.E.2d 1168, 1169 (Habeas corpus is not available to challenge either the validity or the sufficiency of an indictment.). McBroom possessed an adequate remedy by direct appeal to raise this issue. Id.

In addition, McBroom failed to attach a copy of his trial court’s sentencing order, in violation of R.C. 2725.04(D). Brown v. Rogers (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 339, 341, 650 N.E.2d 422, 423, quoting Bloss v. Rogers (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 145, 146, 602 N.E.2d 602, 602 (“ ‘These commitment papers are necessary for a complete understanding of the petition. Without them, the petition is fatally defective. When a petition is presented to a court that does not comply with R.C. 2725.04(D), there is no showing of how the commitment was procured and there is nothing before the court on which to make a determined judgment except, of course, the bare allegations of petitioner’s application.’ ”). McBroom also did not verify his petition. R.C. 2725.04 (“Application for the writ of habeas corpus shall be by petition, signed and verified either by the party for whose relief it is intended, or by some person for him * * *.”). (Emphasis added.)

Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals properly dismissed the petition. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Stratton, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.