Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Richard v. Seidner

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 6, 1996No. 96-1174PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Per curiam

Richard asserts in his sole proposition of law that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his habeas corpus petition, since his indictment did not allege that he committed the charged offense of felonious assault within the jurisdiction of his sentencing court, i.e., the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. R.C. 2941.03(D). However, Richard’s claim challenges the validity or sufficiency of his indictment, is nonjurisdictional in nature, and should have been raised on appeal of his criminal conviction rather than in habeas corpus. State ex rel. Wilcox v. Seidner (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 412,…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Richard v. SeidnerOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  2. State ex rel. Wilcox v. SeidnerOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  3. Luna v. RussellOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Freeman v. TateOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  5. State ex rel. Richard v. SeidnerOhio Supreme Court · 1996

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Matter of JohnsonWashington Supreme Court · 1997
  2. State ex rel. Brantley v. GheeOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Russell v. MitchellOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  4. State ex rel. Richard v. SeidnerOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  5. State ex rel. Brantley v. GheeOhio Supreme Court · 1997

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API