Becker v. Bradshaw, Unpublished Decision (7-13-2004)
This text of 2004 Ohio 3712 (Becker v. Bradshaw, Unpublished Decision (7-13-2004)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
{¶ 3} On November 24, 2003, the trial court granted appellee's motion to dismiss. In the Judgment Entry, the trial court stated that it was granting the motion to dismiss for two separate reasons. First, the petition was defective when it was filed without a copy of the commitment papers as required by R.C.
{¶ 4} Thus, it is from the November 24, 2003, Judgment Entry of the Richland County Court of Common Pleas that appellant appeals, raising the following assignments of error:
{¶ 5} "I. DeWeese errored [sic] in ordering the retribution and retaliation raid against Becker, assuming he could trigger the sting with manci C.O.S before he was forced to render a corrupt decision furthering scandal.
{¶ 6} "II. DeWeese errored [sic] in dragging out an instant habeas corpus for six months, costing the state untold millions of dollars in damages.
{¶ 7} "III. DeWeese errored [sic] in assuming that the habeas corpus would then be submitted directly for federal review, and not appealed for damages.
{¶ 8} "IV. DeWeese errored [sic] in assuming there is no sting, and that he and the appellees could act with impunity and the absolute judicial anarchy of united way; when the conspiracy followed appellant into the prison system, the prisons became the new object of the federal sting."
{¶ 9} Appellant argues that the trial court erred when it dismissed appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Our standard of review is de novo.
{¶ 10} Upon de novo review, this court finds that the trial court did not err when it denied appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Accordingly, appellant's four assignments of error are overruled.
{¶ 11} The judgment of the Richland County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Edwards, J., Gwin, P.J. and Wise, J. concur.
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion on file, the judgment of the Richland County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs assessed to appellant.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2004 Ohio 3712, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/becker-v-bradshaw-unpublished-decision-7-13-2004-ohioctapp-2004.