Legal Opinion

VanBuskirk v. Wingard

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 7, 1998No. Nos. 97-1160, 97-1281, 97-1409, 97-1565 and 97-1857PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Per curiam

We affirm the judgments of the court of appeals dismissing appellants’ petitions. Appellants’ claims merely attacked the validity and sufficiency of their indictments. Consequently, their claims should have been raised by direct appeal rather than habeas corpus. State ex rel. Beaucamp v. Lazaroff (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 237, 238, 673 N.E.2d 1273, 1274. Further, contrary to appellants’ assertions, a grand jury foreperson’s failure to sign an indictment does not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction or otherwise entitle a criminal defendant convicted and sentenced on the indictment to a writ of…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Beaucamp v. LazaroffOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  2. State ex rel. Justice v. McMackinOhio Supreme Court · 1990

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Childers v. WingardOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Thornton v. RussellOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  3. State v. BurnsideOhio Court of Appeals · 2010
  4. State v. ReedOhio Court of Appeals · 2022
  5. State v. WheelerOhio Court of Appeals · 2011

7 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