[Cite as Gooden v. Bradshaw, 2011-Ohio-5300.]
COURT OF APPEALS
RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JESSE L. GOODEN
Petitioner
-vs-
MARGARET BRADSHAW, Warden
Respondent
: JUDGES:
: William B. Hoffman, P.J.
: John W. Wise, J.
: Julie A. Edwards, J.
:
: Case No. 11CA55
:
:: OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Habeas Corpus
JUDGMENT: Denied
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: October 12, 2011
APPEARANCES:
For Petitioner For Respondent
JESSE L. GOODEN GENE D. PARK
Richland Correctional Institute Criminal Justice Section
1001 Olivesburg Rd. 150 East Gay Street, 16th Floor
P.O. Box 8107 Columbus, Ohio 43215
Mansfield, Ohio 44901-8107
Hoffman, P.J.
{¶1} Petitioner, Jesse Gooden, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
requesting immediate release from prison based upon an alleged void sentence.
Petitioner claims the sentence is void because the trial court sentenced Petitioner on
Count One despite the fact Count One was dismissed prior to trial.
{¶2} Petitioner was indicted on four counts. Count One of the indictment was a
charge of Felonious Assault which the State moved to dismiss prior to trial. A jury trial
was held on the three remaining counts: Count Two was a charge of Failure to Comply
with an Order of a Police Officer, Count Three was a charge of Vandalism, and Count
Four was a charge of Felonious Assault. The jury found the Petitioner guilty of all three
counts. The trial court essentially renumbered the jury verdict forms in a way which did
not correspond to the same numbers listed on the indictment. It is undisputed Petitioner
was convicted on three counts and sentenced on three counts. Petitioner argues his
sentence was void because the count numbers assigned in the sentencing entry do not
exactly correspond to the numbers contained in the indictment.
{¶3} The Ninth District Court of Appeals approved the use of verdict forms
which were labeled with numbers that did not correspond with the numbering on the
indictment, “To avoid confusion, the crimes pertaining to Defendant in the jury verdict
forms were simply labeled beginning on “Count One” rather than on “Count Three.” It is
clear that Defendant was convicted for the crimes with which he was charged in the
indictment. The different numbering of the counts in the indictment and verdict forms
was neither error nor prejudicial to Defendant. See Crim.R. 52(A).” State v. Washington
1997 WL 775666, 7 (Ohio App. 9 Dist.).
{¶4} We find Petitioner has or had an adequate remedy at law by way of direct
appeal to challenge any defect in his sentence. “Like other extraordinary-writ actions,
habeas corpus is not available when there is an adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law.” In re Complaint for Writ of Habeas Corpus for Goeller, 103 Ohio St.3d
427, 2004-Ohio-5579, 816 N.E.2d 594, ¶ 6.
{¶5} Finally, as the Supreme Court has held, “[H]abeas corpus is generally
available only when the petitioner's maximum sentence has expired and he is being
held unlawfully. Morgan v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 344, 346, 626
N.E.2d 939, 941.” Heddleston v. Mack 84 Ohio St.3d 213, 213-214, 702 N.E.2d 1198,
1198 (Ohio,1998); Hughley v. Duffey, 2009 WL 3790667, 1 (Ohio App. 5 Dist.).
{¶6} Here Petitioner was sentenced on July 24, 2009 to a term of nine years in
prison which has not expired. Because Petitioner remains incarcerated pursuant to a
valid, unexpired sentence, habeas corpus does not lie.
{¶7} PETITION DENIED.
By: Hoffman, P.J.
Wise, J. and
Edwards, J. concur
s/ William B. Hoffman ____________
s/ John W. Wise ________________
s/ Julie A. Edwards______________
JUDGES
WBH/as0906
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JESSE L. GOODEN :
:
Petitioner :
:
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
MARGARET BRADSHAW, Warden :
:
Respondent : CASE NO. 11CA55
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Opinion on file, Petitioner’s Petition for
a Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied. Costs assessed to Petitioner.
s/ William B. Hoffman ________________
s/ John W. Wise ____________________
s/ Julie A. Edwards___________________
JUDGES