Briseno v. Cook

901 N.E.2d 798, 121 Ohio St. 3d 38
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided February 3, 2009·No. No. 2008-1733·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the habeas corpus petition of appellant, Antonio Briseno. Appellant had an adequate remedy by way of direct appeal from his sentence to raise his claim that he did not receive proper notification about postrelease control at his sentencing hearing. Patterson v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 120 Ohio St.3d 311, 2008-Ohio-6147, 898 N.E.2d 950, ¶ 8; Watkins v. Collins, 111 Ohio St.3d 425, 2006-Ohio-5082, 857 N.E.2d 78, ¶ 45 and 53.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.

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

Briseno v. Cook, 901 N.E.2d 798, 121 Ohio St. 3d 38 (Ohio 2009).

901 N.E.2d 798 (Briseno v. Cook) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State ex rel. Shepherd v. Astrab
2011 Ohio 5789 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2011)
State Ex Rel. Castro v. Corrigan
2011 OH 4059 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2011)
State ex rel. Paige v. Corrigan
2011 Ohio 4057 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2011)
State ex rel. Tucker v. Forchione
2010 Ohio 6291 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2010)
State ex rel. Thomas v. DeWine
2010 Ohio 4984 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2010)
State Ex Rel. Martin v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority
2010 Ohio 4727 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2010)