Smith v. Eppinger , 2020 Ohio 319 ( 2020 )

[Cite as Smith v. Eppinger, 2020-Ohio-319.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF LORAIN )
EDWARD SMITH
C.A. No. 19CA011528
Petitioner
v.
ORIGINAL ACTION IN
LASHANN EPPINGER, WARDEN HABEAS CORPUS
Respondent
Dated: February 3, 2020
PER CURIAM.
{¶1} Petitioner, Edward Smith, has petitioned this Court for a writ of habeas
corpus to compel Respondent, Warden Eppinger, to release him from custody. Warden
Eppinger has moved to dismiss. For the following reasons, this Court dismisses the
petition.
{¶2} When this Court reviews a motion to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), we
must presume that all of the factual allegations in the petition are true and make all
reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. State ex rel. Seikbert v. Wilkinson,
69 Ohio St. 3d 489, 490 (1994). A petition can only be dismissed when, having viewed
the complaint in this way, it appears beyond doubt that the relator can prove no set of
facts that would entitle him to the relief requested. Goudlock v. Voorhies, 119 Ohio St.3d
C.A. No. 19CA011528
Page 2 of 4
389, 2008-Ohio-4787, ¶ 7. With this standard in mind, we begin with the facts alleged in
the petition.
{¶3} According to Mr. Smith’s petition, he was convicted of murder and
sentenced, in 1999, to serve 15 years to life following a 3-year sentence for a gun
specification. He has alleged that the trial court lacked jurisdiction. In his petition, he
has relied on the trial court’s sentencing entry and a portion of the transcript of
proceedings from his trial.
{¶4} The transcript he has relied on is from the testimony of one witness, an FBI
agent related to the victim who happened to be visiting at the time of the murder. The
agent assisted with the investigation and testified about how he was involved in locating
Mr. Smith shortly after the murder. Mr. Smith has focused on the agent’s testimony that
Mr. Smith had a gun when the agent found him.
{¶5} Mr. Smith has alleged that he was not indicted for a crime related to this
testimony. He has concluded, therefore, that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict
him in the absence of a formal charge through an indictment. He has asked this Court to
declare him innocent and order his release from prison.
{¶6} State habeas corpus relief is available in specific, extraordinary
circumstances. R.C. Chapter 2725 prescribes the procedure for bringing a habeas corpus
action. The petitioner must file a petition that contains specific, required, information. If
this Court concludes that the petition states a facially valid claim, it must allow the writ.
R.C. 2725.06. On the other hand, if the petition fails to state a claim, this Court should
dismiss the petition. Chari v. Vore, 91 Ohio St. 3d 323, 327 (2001). For this Court to
C.A. No. 19CA011528
Page 3 of 4
grant the writ, Mr. Smith must demonstrate that there is an unlawful restraint of his liberty
or that the judgment of conviction and sentence is void due to lack of jurisdiction. Pegan
v. Crawmer, 76 Ohio St. 3d 97, 99-100 (1996).
{¶7} As noted above, to dismiss a petition under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), it must appear
beyond doubt from the petition, after all factual allegations are presumed true and all
reasonable inferences are made in favor of Mr. Smith, that he can prove no set of facts
warranting relief. State ex rel. Dehler v. Sutula, Judge, 74 Ohio St. 3d 33, 34 (1995). “A
writ of habeas corpus is warranted in certain extraordinary circumstances ‘where there is
an unlawful restraint of a person’s liberty and there is no adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law.’” Johnson v. Timmerman-Cooper, 93 Ohio St. 3d 614, 616 (2001), quoting
Pegan v. Crawmer, 76 Ohio St. 3d 97, 99 (1996). In the absence of a patent and
unambiguous lack of jurisdiction, a trial court with general subject matter jurisdiction can
determine its jurisdiction and an adequate remedy at law can be obtained through an
appeal of that decision. State ex rel. M.L. v. O’Malley, 144 Ohio St. 3d 553, 2015-Ohio-
4855, ¶ 9.
{¶8} Mr. Smith has alleged that he was not indicted for an offense that could
have been charged based on the FBI agent’s testimony. Taking this allegation as true, it
is insufficient to warrant habeas corpus relief. He has not alleged that the judgment of
conviction and sentence is void due to lack of jurisdiction. Nor has he alleged that the
warden has unlawfully restrained him.
{¶9} Mr. Smith has asked this Court to grant the writ of habeas corpus, declare
him innocent, and order his release from custody. It would be beyond this Court’s
C.A. No. 19CA011528
Page 4 of 4
authority, pursuant to R.C. Chapter 2725, to declare a person innocent in the context of
granting a writ of habeas corpus. That chapter authorizes a court to grant relief if the
petitioner shows that his confinement is the result of an unlawful restraint of his liberty
or that the judgment of conviction is void due to lack of jurisdiction. Pegan, 76 Ohio
St.3d at 99-100. Mr. Smith has failed to present allegations in his complaint that would
warrant habeas corpus relief.
{¶10} The motion to dismiss is granted, and this case is dismissed. Costs are taxed
to Mr. Smith. The clerk of courts is hereby directed to serve upon all parties not in default
notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. See Civ.R. 58.
THOMAS A. TEODOSIO
FOR THE COURT
HENSAL, J.
SCHAFER, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
EDWARD SMITH, Pro Se, Petitioner.
DAVE YOST, Attorney General, and M. SCOTT CRISS, Assistant Attorney General, for
Respondent.