Opinion
No. 88-952
Submitted July 5, 1988 —
Decided October 12, 1988.
Habeas corpus — Relief denied when habeas corpus is not proper remedy.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Allen County, No. 1-88-26.
Appellant was convicted of fifteen counts of illegal possession of drug documents and imprisoned, currently at the Lima Correctional Institution where appellee is superintendent. Appellant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the court of appeals alleging that six counts of the indictment under which he was convicted were defective because they failed to allege a crime and therefore the trial court had no jurisdiction to sentence him. The court of appeals denied the writ.
The cause is before this court on an appeal as of right.
Luther A. Woodfork, pro se. Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., attorney general, and Alexander G. Thomas, for appellee.
The court of appeals held that the counts of the indictment at issue were phrased in terms of the statute in compliance with Crim. R. 7 and denied the writ. Even if the indictment had been flawed, appeal or post-conviction relief, not habeas corpus, is the proper remedy. Walker v. Maxwell (1965), 1 Ohio St.2d 136, 30 O.O. 2d 487, 205 N.E.2d 394; Freeman v. Maxwell (1965), 4 Ohio St.2d 4, 33 O.O. 2d 2, 210 N.E.2d 885. Habeas corpus is not a proper remedy when a person is confined by judgment or order of a court that had jurisdiction in the matter. Stahl v. Shoemaker (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 351, 4 O.O. 3d 485, 364 N.E.2d 286. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT and H. BROWN, JJ., concur.