With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the prosecutor was permitted to amend the indictment to include this phrase. After his conviction, Chapman filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus arguing that the amendment was made without the approval of the grand jury. The Ohio Supreme Court held that defendants could not attack the sufficiency of the indictment through a writ of habeas corpus. “The question of the sufficiency of the indictment does not relate to the jurisdiction of the court to try appellant for the crime for which he was convicted.... Appellant’s remedy, if any, is by way of appeal from the judgment of conviction.” Id. at 51, 356 N.E.2d at 722 (citation omitted). See also Mills v. Maxwell, 174 Ohio St. 523, 524, 190 N.E.2d 264, 265 (per curiam), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 850, 84 S.Ct. 107, 11 L.Ed.2d 77 (1963) (<HOLDING>). The same principle was applied recently in

A: holding that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to review the weight of evidence  
B: holding that managing conservator while in texas to seek return of child by writ of habeas corpus may not be served with civil process and is subject to jurisdiction of court in which habeas corpus is pending and only for purpose of prosecuting writ of habeas corpus
C: holding that threeyear statute of limitations was not an unconstitutional suspension of the writ of habeas corpus
D: holding that petitioner could not challenge his conviction on the grounds that the indictment failed to charge an essential element of the crime through a writ of habeas corpus
D.