Christian v. Davis ( 2023 )

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as
Christian v. Davis, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1445.]
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-1445CHRISTIAN, APPELLANT, v. DAVIS, WARDEN,1 APPELLEE.
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it
may be cited as Christian v. Davis, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1445.]
Habeas corpus—Inmate failed to state a cognizable habeas claim—Court of
appeals’ dismissal of petition affirmed.
(No. 2022-1205—Submitted February 7, 2023—Decided May 4, 2023.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Trumbull County,
No. 2022-T-0051, 2022-Ohio-3201.
________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Wayne Christian, appeals the judgment of the Eleventh
District Court of Appeals dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus against
appellee, Anthony Davis, warden of the Trumbull Correctional Institution. We
affirm.
1. Christian filed his petition against the former warden, Charmaine Bracy. Pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R.
4.06(B), Anthony Davis, the current warden, is automatically substituted as a party to this action.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Background
{¶ 2} Christian is serving an aggregate 40-year prison sentence for nine
convictions for felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(B)(3), which
prohibits a person with knowledge of the person’s HIV status from engaging in
sexual conduct with a minor who is not the offender’s spouse. His convictions and
sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Christian, 7th Dist. Jefferson No.
07 JE 9, 2007-Ohio-7205.
{¶ 3} In 2022, Christian filed a petition in the Eleventh District seeking a
writ of habeas corpus, arguing that R.C. 2903.11(B)(3) violates the Equal
Protection Clauses of the Ohio and United States Constitutions. He further alleged
that his classification as a sexual predator should be vacated because “he was
convicted of no sex crime.” The court of appeals granted the warden’s motion to
dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to state a valid claim for habeas relief.
Christian timely appealed to this court as of right.
Analysis
{¶ 4} We review de novo a decision granting a motion to dismiss under
Civ.R. 12(B)(6). State ex rel. Slaughter v. Foley, 166 Ohio St.3d 222, 2021-Ohio-
4049, 184 N.E.3d 87, ¶ 8. Here, dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted is appropriate if, after all factual
allegations are presumed true and all reasonable inferences are made in Christian’s
favor, it appears beyond doubt that he could prove no set of facts entitling him to a
writ of habeas corpus and immediate release from prison. See McDougald v.
Bowerman, 161 Ohio St.3d 268, 2020-Ohio-3942, 162 N.E.3d 762, ¶ 8. A writ of
habeas corpus “is not available when the petitioner has an adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law, unless a trial court’s judgment is void for lack of
jurisdiction.” State ex rel. Davis v. Turner, 164 Ohio St.3d 395, 2021-Ohio-1771,
172 N.E.3d 1026, ¶ 8.
2
January Term, 2023
{¶ 5} Christian alleges that his imprisonment constitutes cruel and unusual
punishment and violates his right to due process because R.C. 2903.11(B)(3) is
unconstitutional. Habeas corpus will not lie for nonjurisdictional claims, such as
Christian’s equal-protection and due-process claims, that can be raised on direct
appeal. See Stevens v. Hill, 168 Ohio St.3d 427, 2022-Ohio-2479, 199 N.E.3d 529,
¶ 8 (the inmate’s “due-process and equal-protection claims are not cognizable in
habeas corpus, because * * * they are nonjurisdictional claims for which he had an
adequate remedy by way of appeal or postconviction relief”).
{¶ 6} In passing, Christian reframes his claims in jurisdictional terms,
arguing that because R.C. 2903.11(B)(3) is unconstitutional, the trial court lacked
jurisdiction to sentence him. But challenging the trial court’s exercise of
jurisdiction is not the same as challenging the jurisdiction of a trial court to hear the
case.
{¶ 7} R.C. 2931.03 allocates to common pleas courts subject-matter
jurisdiction over all felony cases. As a result, here, the trial court had subject-matter
jurisdiction over the case and personal jurisdiction over Christian. State v. Harper,
160 Ohio St.3d 480, 2020-Ohio-2913, 159 N.E.3d 248, ¶ 26.
Conclusion
{¶ 8} For these reasons, we affirm the court of appeals’ judgment
dismissing Christian’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Judgment affirmed.
KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER,
and DETERS, JJ., concur.
_________________
Wayne Christian, pro se.
Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Lisa K. Browning, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
_________________
3