Briseno v. Cook
This text of 901 N.E.2d 798 (Briseno v. Cook) 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.
Opinion
{¶ 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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
901 N.E.2d 798, 121 Ohio St. 3d 38, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/briseno-v-cook-ohio-2009.