-
Per Curiam. We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the reasons stated in its opinion. Raglin’s claim challenges the validity or sufficiency of his indictment, is nonjurisdictional in nature, and should have been raised in an appeal of his criminal conviction rather than in habeas corpus. See State ex rel. Richard v. Seidner (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 149, 151, 666 N.E.2d 1134, 1136 (“Richard essentially challenged the validity of his amended indictment, a claim which is not cognizable in habeas corpus.”).
Judgment affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Document Info
Docket Number: No. 97-2464
Citation Numbers: 82 Ohio St. 3d 410
Judges: Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney
Filed Date: 7/29/1998
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/21/2022