State ex rel. Shackleford v. Moore

Summary

The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of Phillip G. Shackleford’s habeas corpus petition challenging his criminal sentence. The court held that sentencing errors are not cognizable in habeas corpus because adequate remedies existed through appeal and post-conviction relief, and that the cited sentencing decisions did not provide retroactive grounds for habeas relief.

Holdings

1. Sentencing errors are not jurisdictional and are not cognizable in habeas corpus when the petitioner has or had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, such as a direct appeal or postconviction relief.
2. Foster does not authorize extraordinary habeas corpus relief for sentencing errors, and its holding concerning unconstitutional sentencing statutes applies only to cases pending on direct review; the decisions relied on by Shackleford did not apply retroactively to his case, which was final on direct review.
3. The fact that Shackleford had already unsuccessfully pursued a direct appeal did not entitle him to extraordinary habeas corpus relief.

Questions Presented

1. Whether alleged sentencing errors rendered Shackleford's confinement jurisdictionally invalid and cognizable in habeas corpus.
2. Whether Foster, Blakely, or Apprendi supplied a basis for retroactive habeas corpus relief after Shackleford's conviction and sentence had become final on direct review.
3. Whether the prior unsuccessful direct appeal precluded or otherwise failed to bar the requested extraordinary habeas corpus relief.

Disposition

affirmed