Malone v. Lane, 775 N.E.2d 527 (Ohio 2002). · Go Syfert
Search
Malone v. Lane, 775 N.E.2d 527 (Ohio 2002). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
22 citation events (22 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Payne v. Jeffreys (ohio, 2006-05-24)
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002 2014 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Payne v. Jeffreys
Ohio · 2006 · confidence medium
See Thornton v. Russell (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 93, 94 , 694 N.E.2d 464 (claim that indictment was void because the grand-jury foreman did not manually endorse that the indictment was a true bill); Malone v. Lane, 96 Ohio St.3d 415 , 2002-Ohio-4908 , 775 N.E.2d 527, ¶ 1, 4 (claims that there was no endorsement that the indictment was a true bill and that the grand jury did not certify the indictment). {¶ 6} Moreover, Payne’s indictment satisfied R.C. 2939.20, since the words “a true bill” were in a preprinted indictment form and the grand-jury foreman subscribed his name as foreman under…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Williamson v. Williams
Ohio · 2004 · confidence medium
See, e.g., O’Bannon v. Haskins (1965), 1 Ohio St.2d 110, 111 , 30 O.O.2d 430 , 205 N.E.2d 16 (perjured testimony); Malone v. Lane, 96 Ohio St.3d 415 , 2002-Ohio-4908 , 775 N.E.2d 527, ¶ 4 (denial of Miranda rights); Harris v. Bagley, 97 Ohio St.3d 98 , 2002-Ohio-5369 , 776 N.E.2d 490 , ¶ 3 (defect in municipal court’s assumption of jurisdiction when petitioner is subsequently convicted and sentenced upon an indictment); Wilson v. Rogers (1993), 68 Ohio St.3d 130, 131 , 623 N.E.2d 1210 (prosecutorial misconduct); Galloway v. Money, 100 Ohio St.3d 74 , 2003-Ohio-5060 , 796 N.E.2d 528 , ¶ …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Novak v. Gansheimer, Unpublished Decision (10-10-2003)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see also · confidence low
See, also, Malone v. Lane (2002), 96 Ohio St.3d 415 , in which it was held that a cognizable claim in habeas corpus could not be based on the assertion that the foreman had not endorsed the indictment as a true bill, and State ex rel.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Malone
v.
Lane, Warden
No. 2002-0538.
Ohio Supreme Court.
Oct 2, 2002.
775 N.E.2d 527
Curtis Malone, pro se., Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Ted Kiser, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney.
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} In January 2002, appellant, Curtis Malone, submitted a filing entitled “Petitioner-Appellant’s Brief’ and “Habeas Corpus Appeal” in the Court of Appeals for Marion County. In his brief, Malone requested a writ of habeas corpus to compel his immediate release from prison. Malone claimed that he was entitled to the writ because there was no endorsement that his indictment was a true bill and the grand jury did not certify the indictment. Malone further[*416] claimed that he had been denied his Miranda rights. Malone’s brief was not verified.

Curtis Malone, pro se. Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Ted Kiser, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

{¶ 2} In February 2002, the court of appeals dismissed the cause.

{¶ 3} In his appeal as of right, Malone asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his habeas corpus action. For the reasons that follow, we hold that Malone’s claims lack merit.

{¶ 4} First, Malone’s claims are not cognizable in habeas corpus, and he had adequate legal remedies in the ordinary course of law to raise these claims. Howard v. Randle (2002), 95 Ohio St.3d 281, 282, 767 N.E.2d 268 (validity or sufficiency of indictment); State v. Dunlap (July 25, 1997), 11th Dist. No. 97-L-115, 1997 WL 469781 (denial of Miranda rights).

{¶ 5} Second, a habeas corpus action must be commenced by filing a petition rather than an appellate brief. R.C. 2725.04 (“Application for the writ of habeas corpus shall be by petition * * * ”); cf. State ex rel. Graves v. Ney (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 234, 718 N.E.2d 1289.

{¶ 6} Third, even assuming that Malone’s filing could be treated as a habeas corpus petition, it was fatally defective because he failed to verify it, as required by R.C. 2725.04. Chari v. Vore (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 323, 328, 744 N.E.2d 763.

{¶ 7} Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.