Smith v. Seidner
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
1 Smith, Appellant, v. Seidner, Warden, Appellee. 2 [Cite as Smith v. Seidner (1997), 3 Habeas corpus not available to challenge either the validity or sufficiency 4 of an indictment -- Habeas corpus not available to raise claims of 5 improper jury instructions or verdict forms. 6 (No. 96-2710 -- Submitted March 4, 1997 -- Decided April 16, 1997.) 7 Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Lorain County, No. 96CA006407. 8 In 1991, a grand jury indicted appellant, Stanley Smith, of one count of 9 felonious assault with accompanying firearm and physical-harm specifications. 10 In 1992, the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas convicted Smith of 11 felonious assault and sentenced him accordingly. Ohio St.3d .] 12 In 1996, Smith filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of 13 Appeals for Lorain County. Smith claimed that he was entitled to immediate 14 release from prison because the common pleas court deleted the physical-harm 15 specification contained in the indictment from the jury verdict form and apparently 16 did not refer to this specification in its jury instructions. The court of appeals 17 granted the motion of appellee, Lorain Correctional Institution Warden Larry 18 Seidner, and dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief 19 can be granted. 1 ____________________ 2 Stanley Smith, pro se. 3 Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Michael L. Bachman, 4 5 6 Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. ____________________ Per Curiam. Smith asserts in his sole proposition of law that the court of 7 appeals erred by dismissing his habeas corpus petition. 8 challenged the common pleas court s verdict form because it did not include the 9 physical-harm specification contained in his indictment. 10 Smith s petition As the court of appeals held, habeas corpus is not available to challenge 11 either the validity or sufficiency of an indictment. 12 Lazaroff (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 571, 664 N.E.2d 937. In addition, habeas corpus is 13 not available to raise claims of improper jury instructions or verdict forms. See, 14 e.g., State ex rel. Richard v. Seidner (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 149, 152, 666 N.E.2d 15 1134, 1136-1137. Smith s claim could have been raised in a direct appeal from 16 his conviction and sentence. Simpson, 75 Ohio St.3d at 571, 664 N.E.2d at 937; 17 Richard, 76 Ohio St.3d at 152, 666 N.E.2d at 1136-1137; see, also, State v. Hill 2 State ex rel. Simpson v. 1 (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 195, 208-209, 661 N.E.2d 1068, 1081-1082 (issue of 2 propriety of jury verdict form raised in direct appeal). 3 Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals correctly dismissed the petition 4 because Smith possessed an adequate remedy at law by appeal. Accordingly, we 5 affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 6 7 8 Judgment affirmed. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
