VanBuskirk v. Wingard

Ohio Supreme Court
VanBuskirk v. Wingard, 80 Ohio St. 3d 659 (Ohio 1998)
687 N.E.2d 776
Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney

VanBuskirk v. Wingard

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

We affirm the judgments of the court of appeals dismissing appellants’ petitions. Appellants’ claims merely attacked the validity and sufficiency of their indictments. Consequently, their claims should have been raised by direct appeal rather than habeas corpus. State ex rel. Beaucamp v. Lazaroff (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 237, 238, 673 N.E.2d 1273, 1274. Further, contrary to appellants’ assertions, a grand jury foreperson’s failure to sign an indictment does not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction or otherwise entitle a criminal defendant convicted and sentenced on the indictment to a writ of habeas corpus. State ex rel. Justice v. McMackin (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 72, 73, 558 N.E.2d 1183.

Judgments affirmed.

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

Reference

Full Case Name
VanBuskirk v. Wingard, Warden, Appellee Childers v. Wingard, Warden, Malone v. Wingard, Warden, Appellee Sproat v. Wingard, Warden, Appellee Mortemore v. Wingard, Warden
Cited By
19 cases
Status
Published