Orr v. Schweitzer

Summary

Habeas corpus in Ohio does not permit relief for nonjurisdictional errors, including claims of actual innocence, insufficiency of the evidence, and prosecutorial misconduct, when adequate remedies at law (direct appeal or postconviction relief) were available. The court affirmed dismissal of the petition and denied motions for deposition, investigative funds, judicial notice of disputed facts, and summary judgment, as summary judgment is inapplicable to appeal proceedings.

Holdings

1. Nonjurisdictional errors, including claims of actual innocence, insufficiency of the evidence, and prosecutorial misconduct, are not cognizable in habeas corpus. Dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) was proper because Orr had adequate remedies at law (direct appeal or postconviction relief).
2. A claim of actual innocence is not a cognizable basis for habeas relief under Ohio law, and Orr had adequate legal remedies such as postconviction relief to raise it.
3. A claim contesting the sufficiency of the evidence is not a cognizable basis for relief in habeas corpus.
4. Claims of prosecutorial misconduct are not cognizable in habeas corpus.
5. Judicial notice is improper when the facts are disputed or when the court is asked to take notice of legal conclusions. Such motions are denied.
6. Summary judgment is not applicable to proceedings on appeal. The motion is denied.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court of appeals erred in dismissing Orr's habeas corpus petition without an evidentiary hearing on his claim of actual innocence.
2. Whether the court of appeals erred in dismissing Orr's petition without a factual identification inquiry into his guilt.
3. Whether claims of prosecutorial misconduct are cognizable in habeas corpus.
4. Whether Orr's motions for emergency deposition, funds to hire an investigator, judicial notice, and summary judgment should be granted.

Disposition

affirmed