State ex rel. Norman v. Collins , 2023 Ohio 975 ( 2023 )

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State
ex rel. Norman v. Collins, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-975.]
NOTICE
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an
advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to
promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65
South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other
formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before
the opinion is published.
SLIP OPINION NO. 2023-OHIO-975THE STATE EX REL. NORMAN, APPELLANT, v. COLLINS, WARDEN, APPELLEE.
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it
may be cited as State ex rel. Norman v. Collins, Slip Opinion No.
2023-Ohio-975.]
Habeas corpus—Unless a trial court’s judgment is void for want of jurisdiction, a
writ of habeas corpus will not issue when petitioner has or had adequate
remedy in ordinary course of the law—Court of appeals’ judgment
affirmed.
(No. 2022-0843—Submitted January 10, 2023—Decided March 29, 2023.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Pickaway County, No. 22CA7.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Redan R. Norman, an inmate at the Pickaway Correctional
Institution (“PCI”), appeals the judgment of the Fourth District Court of Appeals
dismissing his complaint for a writ of habeas corpus against appellee, Emma
Collins, the warden of PCI. Also pending is Norman’s motion to supplement his
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
merit brief with additional documents. We deny the motion to supplement and
affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
I. Background
{¶ 2} In 1998, a Franklin County grand jury indicted Norman on two counts
of aggravated murder and one count of kidnapping. Each count carried a firearm
specification. The jury convicted Norman on all counts and the trial court sentenced
him to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Norman appealed, and the
Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed Norman’s convictions and sentence. State
v. Norman, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 99AP-398, 2000 WL 775620 (Dec. 23, 1999).
{¶ 3} In March 2022, Norman filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in
the Fourth District Court of Appeals. He alleged that his conviction in Franklin
County was void due to a lack of venue because the crimes occurred in Fairfield
County. He also accused the former Franklin County prosecuting attorney of
suborning perjury to cover up the state’s inability to prove that venue was proper in
Franklin County. Norman alleged that he was entitled to immediate release from
prison and dismissal of all charges.
{¶ 4} The court of appeals dismissed the petition for failure to comply with
the filing requirements in R.C. 2969.25 and 2725.04. 4th Dist. Pickaway No. 22CA7
(June 2, 2022). Norman appealed to this court as of right. At the same time that
Norman filed his merit brief, he also filed a motion for leave to supplement his brief
with additional documents. Collins filed a merit brief but did not address the motion.
II. Legal analysis
A. The motion to supplement
{¶ 5} In his motion, Norman seeks leave to supplement his brief with three
documents “that [were] not made a part of the record” in the court of appeals. The
documents appear to be offered in support of Norman’s claim that the proper venue
to try the case was Fairfield County, not Franklin County.
2
January Term, 2023
{¶ 6} A litigant is not permitted to add evidence to the record for the first
time on appeal. State ex rel. Barnette v. Hill, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-2469,
__ N.E.3d __, ¶ 14. S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.09(A) permits an appellant to “prepare and file
a supplement to the briefs that contains those portions of the record necessary to
enable the Supreme Court to determine the questions presented.” Norman cites this
rule as authority for his motion. But S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.09(A) merely authorizes an
appellant to submit copies of relevant documents already in the record. It does not
authorize a party to add documents to the record that were not presented to the lower
court. See also State ex rel. Harris v. Turner, 160 Ohio St.3d 506, 2020-Ohio-2901,
159 N.E.3d 1121, ¶ 16 (“A reviewing court generally may not add matter to the
record before it and then decide the appeal on the basis of the new matter”).
{¶ 7} We deny the motion for leave to supplement.
B. The habeas corpus appeal
{¶ 8} We review de novo a court of appeals’ judgment dismissing a petition
for a writ of habeas corpus. Davis v. Hill, 166 Ohio St.3d 516, 2022-Ohio-485, 187
N.E.3d 543, ¶ 6. The court of appeals dismissed Norman’s petition solely on the
basis that he had failed to comply with the procedural requirements of R.C. 2969.25
and 2725.04. We affirm the court of appeals’ judgment but for different reasons:
Norman’s petition failed to state a claim that is cognizable in habeas corpus.
{¶ 9} To be entitled to a writ of habeas corpus, a petitioner must show that
he is being unlawfully restrained of his liberty and that he is entitled to immediate
release from prison or confinement. R.C. 2725.01; State ex rel. Cannon v. Mohr,
155 Ohio St.3d 213, 2018-Ohio-4184, 120 N.E.3d 776, ¶ 10. “Generally, a writ of
habeas corpus is available only when the petitioner’s maximum sentence has
expired and he is being held unlawfully * * * or when the sentencing court patently
and unambiguously lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.” Stevens v. Hill, 168 Ohio
St.3d 427, 2022-Ohio-2479, 199 N.E.3d 529, ¶ 6. Unless the trial court’s judgment
3
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
is void for want of jurisdiction, a writ of habeas corpus will not issue when the
petitioner has or had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. Id.{¶ 10} Norman’s habeas petition is premised on a single theory of relief.
According to Norman, he was indicted in Franklin County for a crime that was
committed in Fairfield County. Therefore, he asserts that Franklin County lacked
venue or subject-matter jurisdiction.
{¶ 11} “Subject-matter jurisdiction of a court connotes the power to hear
and decide a case upon its merits, while venue connotes the locality where the suit
should be heard.” Morrison v. Steiner, 32 Ohio St.2d 86, 87, 290 N.E.2d 841(1972). In Norman’s case, the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction over felony
cases involving the offenses for which he was indicted. See Smith v. Sheldon, 157
Ohio St.3d 1, 2019-Ohio-1677, 131 N.E.3d 1, ¶ 8; R.C. 2931.03. Thus, Norman
attacks the allegedly improper venue of his case and not the subject-matter
jurisdiction of the trial court. For this reason, a challenge to venue must be raised
on direct appeal and is not cognizable in habeas corpus. State ex rel. Kerr v. Turner,
158 Ohio St.3d 241, 2019-Ohio-4760, 140 N.E.3d 723, ¶ 7.
{¶ 12} Norman also challenges the constitutionality of the Antiterrorism
and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1),
alleging that it improperly places time limits on his ability to assert his
constitutional due-process rights. But AEDPA is not relevant here: that statute
applies to habeas proceedings in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. 2254(a).
III. Conclusion
{¶ 13} Based on the foregoing, we deny Norman’s motion for leave to
supplement and affirm the judgment of the Fourth District Court of Appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER,
and DETERS, JJ., concur.
_________________
4
January Term, 2023
Redan R. Norman, pro se.
Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Lisa K. Browning, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
_________________
5