[Cite as State ex rel. Harsh v. Sheets, 132 Ohio St.3d 198, 2012-Ohio-2368.]




   THE STATE EX REL. HARSH, APPELLANT, v. SHEETS, WARDEN, APPELLEE.
  [Cite as State ex rel. Harsh v. Sheets, 132 Ohio St.3d 198, 2012-Ohio-2368.]
Court of appeals’ judgment dismissing petition for writ of habeas corpus
        affirmed.
       (No. 2012-0093—Submitted May 23, 2012—Decided May 31, 2012.)
   APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Butler County, No. CA2011-10-203.
                                  __________________
        Per Curiam.
        {¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the
petition of appellant, Robert Harsh, for a writ of habeas corpus. Harsh previously
unsuccessfully raised many of his same claims in his direct appeal, State v. Harsh,
Butler App. No. CA2007-03-083, so res judicata bars him from using habeas
corpus to obtain a successive appellate review of the same claims. See Roberts v.
Knab, 131 Ohio St.3d 60, 2012-Ohio-56, 960 N.E.2d 457, ¶ 1.
        {¶ 2} Moreover, because Harsh either raised or could have raised his
claims in three previous state habeas corpus cases, res judicata also bars him from
filing a successive habeas corpus petition. Nickelson v. Knab, 131 Ohio St.3d
199, 2012-Ohio-579, 963 N.E.2d 154, ¶ 1. Like the court of appeals in this case,
we similarly dismissed a successive habeas corpus petition filed by Harsh in
2011. Harsh v. Knab, 128 Ohio St.3d 1498, 2011-Ohio-2420, 947 N.E.2d 681.
        {¶ 3} Finally, Harsh’s claims are not cognizable in habeas corpus, and he
had an adequate remedy by way of appeal to raise his claims. See Smith v. Smith,
123 Ohio St.3d 145, 2009-Ohio-4691, 914 N.E.2d 1036, ¶ 1 (claim that jury-
verdict forms did not list essential elements of criminal offense); Haynes v.
Voorhies, 110 Ohio St.3d 243, 2006-Ohio-4355, 852 N.E.2d 1198, ¶ 5 (claim
                            SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




challenging validity of amendment to an indictment); State ex rel. Austin v. Knab,
127 Ohio St.3d 118, 2010-Ohio-4982, 936 N.E.2d 958, ¶ 1 (claim of
nonjurisdictional sentencing errors); Webber v. Kelly, 120 Ohio St.3d 440, 2008-
Ohio-6695, 900 N.E.2d 175, ¶ 8 (claim challenging sufficiency of the evidence);
Keith v. Bobby, 117 Ohio St.3d 470, 2008-Ohio-1443, 884 N.E.2d 1067, ¶ 15
(claims of fraud upon the court and prosecutorial misconduct).
                                                                 Judgment affirmed.
       O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL,
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur.
                               __________________
       Robert Harsh, pro se.
                           ______________________




                                        2
