Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Ashtabula
STATE OF OHIO ex rel. DWAYNE DAVIS, Petitioner,
BRIGHAM SLOAN, WARDEN, Respondent.
Original Action for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Davis, pro se,
DeWine, Ohio Attorney General, and Maura O'Neill Jaite,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Justice Section,
Petitioner, Dwayne Davis, seeks a writ of habeas corpus
against respondent, Brigham Sloan, Warden of the Lake Erie
Correctional Institution, for his immediate release from
imprisonment. The petition is dismissed for the reasons that
In September 2013, petitioner pled guilty to Burglary, a
second-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2911.12(A)(1);
Burglary, a fourth-degree felony in violation of R.C.
2911.12(B); and Intimidation of a Crime Victim or Witness, a
third-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2921.04(B). On
October 3, 2013, the trial court imposed an aggregate prison
term of ten years, which was affirmed on appeal in State
v. Davis, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102639, 2015-Ohio-4501.
The trial court subsequently denied a petition for
postconviction relief, which was also affirmed on appeal in
State v. Davis, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 106012,
On April 19, 2018, petitioner filed the instant petition for
a writ of habeas corpus, alleging he is being unlawfully
restrained at the Lake Erie Correctional Institution. The
matter is before us on petitioner's motion for summary
judgment and respondent's motion to dismiss and/or for
summary judgment, both having been duly opposed.
When presented with a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss, the
factual allegations of the complaint are accepted as true. It
must appear beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set
of facts entitling him to relief. O'Brien v. Univ.
Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242 (1975),
A writ of habeas corpus is the proper remedy for a state
prisoner to pursue when he believes his present incarceration
is not lawful. State ex rel. Nelson v. Griffin, 103
Ohio St.3d 167, 2004-Ohio-4754, ¶5. "[T]he burden
of proof is upon the petitioner to establish his right to
release." Halleck v. Koloski, 4 Ohio St.2d 76,
77 (1965) (citation omitted). A writ of habeas corpus can
only be granted if the petitioner establishes that either (1)
the sentencing court in his underlying criminal proceeding
lacked jurisdiction to convict him, or (2) he is still being
held in prison although he has already served his entire
sentence. State ex rel. Vinson v. Gansheimer, 11th
Dist. Ashtabula No. 2007-A-0042, 2007-Ohio-5205, ¶6.
"Like other extraordinary-writ actions, habeas corpus is
not available when there is an adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law." In re Goeller, 103
Ohio St.3d 427, 2004-Ohio-5579, ¶6 (citation omitted);
see also Cornell v. Schotten, 69 Ohio St.3d 466, 467
(1994) (habeas corpus may not be used as a substitute for
other forms of action, such as a direct appeal or
postconviction relief petition). Additionally, "a
defendant who * * * voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently
enters a guilty plea with the assistance of counsel 'may
not thereafter raise independent claims relating to the
deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred prior to
the entry of the guilty plea.'" State v.
Fitzpatrick, 102 Ohio St.3d 321, 2004-Ohio-3167,
¶78, quoting Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S.
258, 267 (1973).
Here, petitioner does not allege that the trial court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction to convict him. Further,
petitioner has not alleged facts that establish he is
entitled to immediate release: the trial court sentenced
petitioner to an aggregate ten-year mandatory prison sentence
that does not expire until the year 2023.
Petitioner argues he is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus
due to an alleged warrantless arrest and an alleged
warrantless search and seizure of evidence. Even if these
claims are accepted as true, they do not implicate the trial
court's jurisdiction. Moreover, they are not cognizable
in habeas corpus because petitioner had adequate remedies at
law in which to raise these claims. See Williamson v.
Williams, 103 Ohio St.3d 25, 2004-Ohio-4111, ¶3
Petitioner's petition fails to state a claim upon which
habeas relief can be granted.
Petitioner's motion for summary judgment is overruled.
Respondent's motion to dismiss is granted, and the