Bradford v. Moore

Ohio Supreme Court

Bradford v. Moore

734 N.E.2d 828, 90 Ohio St. 3d 75

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided September 20, 2000·No. No. 00-715·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

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

Per Curiam.

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.

Bradford v. Moore, 734 N.E.2d 828, 90 Ohio St. 3d 75 (Ohio 2000).

Pincite

734 N.E.2d 828 (Bradford v. Moore) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related