STATE THOMAS v. MONEY (1997)

Per Curiam.  Thomas asserts in his propositions of law that the court of appeals erred by dismissing his habeas corpus petition.   Thomas contends that the sentence for his theft conviction is void based on the claims he raised in the court of appeals.

 The court of appeals, however, correctly dismissed the petition.   Habeas corpus is not available to challenge either sentencing errors or the validity or sufficiency of an indictment.  State ex rel. Massie v. Rogers (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 449, 449-450, 674 N.E.2d 1383;  Smith v. Seidner (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 172, 173, 677 N.E.2d 336.   These claims can be raised on direct appeal.  Massie and Smith.   Similarly, Thomas had an adequate remedy by appeal to raise his remaining claim that he was not present at his sentencing.   See, e.g., State v. Welch (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 47, 7 O.O.3d 128, 372 N.E.2d 346.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

MOYER, C.J., and DOUGLAS, RESNICK, FRANCIS E. SWEENEY, Sr., PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.