Summary
denying a writ of habeas corpus, based on the claim that the "judgment of conviction is 'void' because all the court officers involved in the prosecution participated in a 'fraud and conspiracy'" as the claim did not challenge "the jurisdiction of the sentencing court"
Summary of this case from State v. PerryOpinion
No. 88-939
Submitted July 5, 1988 —
Decided August 31, 1988.
Procedendo — Writ denied when complainant is not party to any pending court action — Habeas corpus — Relief denied when complaint does not challenge sentencing court's jurisdiction.
IN PROCEDENDO and HABEAS CORPUS.
Complainant, James H. Wireman, is incarcerated in the Lima Correctional Facility, by virtue of the judgment entry of the Court of Common Pleas of Clark County in case No. 85-CR-55, finding him guilty of aggravated vehicular homicide and sentencing him to serve an indeterminate term of not less than three years nor more than five years.
On May 24, 1988, Wireman filed a "Complaint and Petition for a Writ of Procedendo and/or Writ of Habeas Corpus" in this court seeking, inter alia, his immediate release. Respondents filed motions to dismiss.
James H. Wireman, pro se. Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., attorney general, and Alexander G. Thomas, for respondent Adult Parole Authority.
William F. Baader, for respondent court of common pleas.
Treating the pro se pleading as two distinct complaints, we consider, first, the complaint for a writ of procedendo. Such writ will be allowed to order a court of inferior jurisdiction to proceed to judgment in a given case. State, ex rel. Ratliff, v. Marshall (1972), 30 Ohio St.2d 101, 102, 59 O.O. 2d 114, 115, 282 N.E.2d 582, 584. However, complainant does not plead, and it does not appear, that he is a party to any action presently pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Clark County. Therefore, the complaint for writ of procedendo is denied.
Next, we consider the complaint for a writ of habeas corpus. It has long been established that a writ of habeas corpus will not be allowed when a prisoner is held by virtue of the judgment of the court of record that had jurisdiction to render that judgment. R.C. 2725.05; In re Burson (1949), 152 Ohio St. 375, 40 O.O. 391, 89 N.E.2d 651, paragraph four of the syllabus; Stahl v. Shoemaker (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 351, 353, 4 O.O. 3d 485, 487, 364 N.E.2d 286, 287.
Complainant makes three distinct claims. First, he claims that his judgment of conviction is "void" because his guilty plea was unknowingly, involuntarily, and unintelligently entered. Second, he claims that his judgment of conviction is "void" because all the court officers involved in the prosecution participated in a "fraud and conspiracy." Finally, he claims that the Ohio Parole Board's decision to deny his parole was "unlawful, arbitrary, and unreasonable." As none of these claims challenges the jurisdiction of the sentencing court, the complaint for writ of habeas corpus must be denied.
Writs denied.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT and H. BROWN, JJ., concur.