State ex rel. Richard v. Seidner
Cases that cite this one
15 later published cases cite this decision.
- Cuervo v. Snell (Ohio Ct. App. 1998)
- Melton v. Melton (Ohio Ct. App. 2013)
- Harris v. Harris, Unpublished Decision (2-5-2001) (Ohio Ct. App. 2001)
- Hansen v. Hansen (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
- Gibbs v. Burley Trucking, L.L.C. (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)
- Ruff v. Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers & Grain Millers & Industry Internatl. (Ohio Ct. App. 2020)
- Cunningham v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 08ap-330 (12-30-2008) (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)
- Boling v. Dimeche Vlado, Inc., 07ap-146 (10-30-2007) (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
- State v. Hatton, 06ca35 (7-19-2007) (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
- Natl. City Home Loan Servs. v. Gillette, Unpublished Decision (6-2-2006) (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)
- Schnippel Constr. v. Kreps, Unpublished Decision (2-15-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
- Shell v. Cryer, Unpublished Decision (3-1-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
- Simon v. Simon, Unpublished Decision (5-4-2001) (Ohio Ct. App. 2001)
- Sheaks v. Revels, Unpublished Decision (3-27-2000) (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)
- State ex rel. Richard v. Seidner (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
Richard asserts in his sole proposition of law that the court of appeals abused its discretion in denying his second motion for relief from the judgment dismissing his habeas corpus petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing. But an evidentiary hearing is not required where the motion and attached evidentiary material do not contain allegations of operative facts which would warrant Civ.R. 60(B) relief. Richard, 76 Ohio St.3d at 151, 666 N.E.2d at 1136, citing S. Ohio Coal Co. v. Kidney (1995), 100 Ohio App.3d 661, 667, 654 N.E.2d 1017, 1021.
Richard’s motion and attached evidentiary material did not allege operative facts entitling him to Civ.R. 60(B) relief. As we recently held in a separate case involving Richard, his claim challenging the validity or sufficiency of the indictment is not cognizable in habeas corpus. State ex rel. Richard v. Seidner (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 68, 69, 671 N.E.2d 28 (“ * * * Richard’s claim challenges the validity or sufficiency of his indictment, is nonjurisdictional in nature, and should have been raised on appeal of his criminal conviction rather than in habeas corpus.”); see, also, State ex rel. Durkin v. Ungaro (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 191, 192, 529 N.E.2d 1268, 1269 (Civ.R. 60[B] motion for relief from judgment cannot be used as a substitute for a timely appeal.). In addition, the indictment attached to his second motion for relief from judgment specifically alleged that the charged offense occurred in Cuyahoga County.
Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals did not abuse its discretion in denying Richard’s second motion for relief from judgment without holding an evidentiary hearing. The court of appeals properly determined that Richard failed to provide the court with any reasons justifying relief from its previous judgment dismissing his habeas corpus petition. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.