Summary
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of Gregory Spears’s habeas corpus petition seeking release from imprisonment. The court held that an alleged failure by the sentencing judge to comply with R.C. 2701.06 was not cognizable in habeas corpus, did not invalidate the criminal proceedings, and that the proper respondent would be the official directly responsible for the petitioner’s custody.
Holdings
- A trial court judge's failure to comply with R.C. 2701.06 is not cognizable in habeas corpus; the proper respondent is the person directly responsible for keeping the petitioner in custody.
- Noncompliance by a judge with R.C. 2701.06 does not invalidate the criminal proceedings or deprive the court of jurisdiction.
Questions Presented
- Whether a trial judge's failure to comply with R.C. 2701.06 is cognizable in a habeas corpus proceeding.
- Whether alleged noncompliance with R.C. 2701.06 invalidated Spears's criminal proceedings or deprived the sentencing court of jurisdiction.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (5)
- Davis v. Wilson, 100 Ohio St. 3d 269, 2003-Ohio-5898, 798 N.E.2d 379, ¶ 11(followed)
- Potts v. Rose, 100 Ohio St. 3d 119, 2003-Ohio-5102, 796 N.E.2d 935(analogized)
- Potts v. DeWeese (Jan. 23, 2002), Richland App. No. 01CA66, 2002 WL 106320(followed)
- State ex rel. Ragozine v. Shaker, 96 Ohio St. 3d 201, 2002-Ohio-3992, 772 N.E.2d 1192, ¶ 13(followed)
- State ex rel. Jones v. Farrar, 146 Ohio St. 467, 32 O.O. 542, 66 N.E.2d 531 (1946), paragraph three of the syllabus(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…