Bradford v. Moore

Ohio Supreme Court

Bradford v. Moore

2000 Ohio 25, 90 Ohio St. 3d 75

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 20, 2000

Docket2000-0715

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2000 Ohio 25 (Bradford v. Moore) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bradford v. Moore, 2000 Ohio 25, 90 Ohio St. 3d 75 (Ohio 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 90 Ohio St.3d 75.]

BRADFORD, APPELLANT, v. MOORE, WARDEN, APPELLEE. [Cite as Bradford v. Moore, 2000-Ohio-25.] Habeas corpus relief sought to compel relator’s release from Madison Correctional Institution—Court of appeals’ dismissal of petition affirmed. (No. 00-715—Submitted August 22, 2000—Decided September 20, 2000.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Madison County, No. CA99-12-034. __________________ {¶ 1} In October 1993, appellant, Derrick A. Bradford, was convicted of aggravated trafficking in drugs and possession of criminal tools and sentenced to an aggregate prison term of fifteen years to life. On appeal, Bradford’s convictions and sentence were affirmed. State v. Bradford (July 27, 1999), Lorain App. No. 93CA005759, unreported, 1994 WL 395601, affirmed (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 1435, 643 N.E.2d 141. {¶ 2} In December 1999, Bradford filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Madison County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel appellee, Madison Correctional Institution Warden Ernie Moore, to immediately release him from prison. Bradford claimed that his convictions and sentence were void because his trial court failed to comply with the jury-trial waiver requirements of R.C. 2945.05. The court of appeals granted Warden Moore’s motion and dismissed the petition. {¶ 3} This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. __________________ Derrick A. Bradford, pro se. Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Diane Mallory, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. __________________ Per Curiam. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶ 4} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals because a “claimed violation of R.C. 2945.05 is not the proper subject for habeas corpus relief and may be remedied only in a direct appeal from a criminal conviction.” State ex rel. Earl v. Mitchell (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 259, 260, 719 N.E.2d 545, 546; State v. Pless (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 333, 658 N.E.2d 766, paragraph two of the syllabus. Judgment affirmed. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. __________________

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 90 Ohio St.3d 75.]

BRADFORD, APPELLANT, v. MOORE, WARDEN, APPELLEE. [Cite as Bradford v. Moore, 2000-Ohio-25.] Habeas corpus relief sought to compel relator’s release from Madison Correctional Institution—Court of appeals’ dismissal of petition affirmed. (No. 00-715—Submitted August 22, 2000—Decided September 20, 2000.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Madison County, No. CA99-12-034. __________________ {¶ 1} In October 1993, appellant, Derrick A. Bradford, was convicted of aggravated trafficking in drugs and possession of criminal tools and sentenced to an aggregate prison term of fifteen years to life. On appeal, Bradford’s convictions and sentence were affirmed. State v. Bradford (July 27, 1999), Lorain App. No. 93CA005759, unreported, 1994 WL 395601, affirmed (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 1435, 643 N.E.2d 141. {¶ 2} In December 1999, Bradford filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Madison County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel appellee, Madison Correctional Institution Warden Ernie Moore, to immediately release him from prison. Bradford claimed that his convictions and sentence were void because his trial court failed to comply with the jury-trial waiver requirements of R.C. 2945.05. The court of appeals granted Warden Moore’s motion and dismissed the petition. {¶ 3} This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. __________________ Derrick A. Bradford, pro se. Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Diane Mallory, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. __________________ Per Curiam. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶ 4} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals because a “claimed violation of R.C. 2945.05 is not the proper subject for habeas corpus relief and may be remedied only in a direct appeal from a criminal conviction.” State ex rel. Earl v. Mitchell (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 259, 260, 719 N.E.2d 545, 546; State v. Pless (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 333, 658 N.E.2d 766, paragraph two of the syllabus. Judgment affirmed. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2000 Ohio 25, 90 Ohio St. 3d 75, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bradford-v-moore-ohio-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack