Ohio Supreme Court, 1997

Smith v. Seidner

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided April 16, 1997 · Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney

78 Ohio St. 3d 172; 677 N.E.2d 336

Cases that cite this one

14 later published cases cite this decision.

State ex rel. Patterson v. Sloan (Ohio Ct. App. 2016)
State ex rel. Johnson v. Lazaroff (Ohio Ct. App. 2014)
McKinney v. Tibbals (Ohio Ct. App. 2014)
State Ex Rel. Moore v. Ohio Apa., Unpublished Decision (4-10-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
Gunnell v. Wolfe, Unpublished Decision (6-24-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
People of Ohio v. McFaul, Unpublished Decision (11-23-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
Smith v. Mitchell (Ohio 1998)
State ex rel. Smith v. Yost (Ohio 1998)
State ex rel. Smith v. Yost (Ohio 1998)
Smith v. Mitchell (Ohio 1998)
State ex rel. Thomas v. Money (Ohio 1997)
Brown v. Haskins, Unpublished Decision (3-25-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
Prunty v. Tate, Unpublished Decision (12-15-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
Smith 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

Per Curiam.

Smith asserts in his sole proposition of law that the court of appeals erred by dismissing his habeas corpus petition. Smith’s petition challenged the common pleas court’s verdict form because it did not include the physical-harm specification contained in his indictment.

As the court of appeals held, habeas corpus is not available to challenge either the validity or sufficiency of an indictment. State ex rel. Simpson v. Lazaroff (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 571, 664 N.E.2d 937. In addition, habeas corpus is not available to raise claims of improper jury instructions or verdict forms. See, e.g., State ex rel. Richard v. Seidner (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 149, 152, 666 N.E.2d 1134, 1136-1137. Smith’s claim could have been raised in a direct appeal from his conviction and sentence. Simpson, 75 Ohio St.3d at 571, 664 N.E.2d at 937; Richard, 76 Ohio St.3d at 152, 666 N.E.2d at 1136-1137; see, also, State v. Hill (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 195, 208-209, 661 N.E.2d 1068, 1081-1082 (issue of propriety of jury verdict form raised in direct appeal).

Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals correctly dismissed the petition because Smith possessed an adequate remedy at law by appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

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

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