Ohio Supreme Court, 1999

Wilkerson v. Mitchell

Wilkerson v. Mitchell
Ohio Supreme Court · Decided October 13, 1999
1999 Ohio 236; 87 Ohio St. 3d 52

Wilkerson v. Mitchell

Opinion

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 87 Ohio St.3d 52.]

WILKERSON, APPELLANT, v. MITCHELL, WARDEN, APPELLEE. [Cite as Wilkerson v. Mitchell, 1999-Ohio-236.]

Habeas corpus to compel relator’s release from prison—Dismissal of petition affirmed, when. (No. 99-1033—Submitted September 15, 1999—Decided October 13, 1999.)

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Richland County, No. 99 CA 29. __________________ {¶ 1} In 1978, a Cuyahoga County Grand Jury indicted appellant, Randolph D. Wilkerson, on three counts of robbery and two counts of receiving stolen property. The Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas convicted Wilkerson on the charged offenses and sentenced him to prison. On appeal, the court of appeals affirmed his convictions on two of the robbery counts. {¶ 2} In 1999, Wilkerson filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Richland County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel his prison warden, appellee Betty Mitchell, to release him from prison. Wilkerson claimed that his robbery convictions were void because of a defective indictment. More specifically, Wilkerson alleged that one of his receiving stolen property charges was illegally “enhanced” to a robbery offense without any indictment on that charge. The court of appeals dismissed the petition. {¶ 3} This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. __________________ Randolph D. Wilkerson, pro se.

Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Michele M. Schoeppe, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. __________________ SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Per Curiam. {¶ 4} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. Wilkerson’s claims challenge the validity and sufficiency of his indictment and are not cognizable in habeas corpus. See Shie v. Leonard (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 160, 161, 702 N.E.2d 419, 420. Moreover, Wilkerson’s robbery convictions were based on an indictment expressly charging him with those offenses.

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.