State ex rel. Krug v. Stuff

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed dismissal of Jon Paul Krug’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court held that his claims concerning alleged sentencing errors, a defective sentencing entry, and due-process violations were not cognizable in habeas corpus because they involved, at most, voidable errors and he had or had had adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law. The court concluded that Krug failed to state a valid habeas claim.

Holdings

1. An alleged sentencing error is not cognizable in habeas corpus when the sentencing court had jurisdiction over the criminal case and the petitioner had or has an adequate remedy through direct appeal or postconviction proceedings. A habeas petition also cannot be used to obtain successive appellate review of an issue already litigated on direct appeal.
2. An alleged sentencing error that occurs when a court with jurisdiction over the case and the person exercises that jurisdiction improperly renders the sentence voidable, not void, and therefore is not cognizable in habeas corpus.
3. A due-process claim concerning the denial of a nunc pro tunc motion is not cognizable in habeas corpus.
4. Krug failed to state a valid claim for a writ of habeas corpus because all three asserted claims were noncognizable; the Fifth District properly dismissed the petition.

Questions Presented

1. Whether an alleged sentencing error based on impermissible judicial factfinding was cognizable in habeas corpus.
2. Whether an alleged defect in the sentencing entry rendered Krug's sentence void and subject to habeas corpus relief.
3. Whether the trial court's alleged denial of due process in denying Krug's nunc pro tunc motion was cognizable in habeas corpus.
4. Whether Krug had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law that precluded habeas corpus relief.

Disposition

affirmed