Brown v. Bradshaw

Ohio Supreme Court

Brown v. Bradshaw

2010 Ohio 3758, 126 Ohio St. 3d 265

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 18, 2010

Docket2010-0649

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 2010 Ohio 3758 (Brown v. Bradshaw) 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

Brown v. Bradshaw, 2010 Ohio 3758, 126 Ohio St. 3d 265 (Ohio 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of appellant, Felix Brown Jr., for a writ of habeas corpus. “Like other extraordinary-writ actions, habeas corpus is not available when there is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.” In re Complaint for Writ of Habeas Corpus for Goeller, 103 Ohio St.3d 427, 2004-Ohio-5579, 816 N.E.2d 594, ¶ 6. Brown had an adequate remedy by way of direct appeal from his criminal convictions and sentence to raise his claims that he was denied his right to be physically present and to have counsel present at a critical stage in his trial, as well as to have the portion of the trial in which the trial court issued supplemental jury instructions open to the public. See Bozsik v. Hudson, 110 Ohio St.3d 245, 2006-Ohio-4356, 852 N.E.2d 1200, ¶ 7-9; State v. Davis, 116 Ohio St.3d 404, 2008-Ohio-2, 880 N.E.2d 31, ¶ 90-93.

Judgment affirmed.

Brown, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lan-zinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of appellant, Felix Brown Jr., for a writ of habeas corpus. “Like other extraordinary-writ actions, habeas corpus is not available when there is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.” In re Complaint for Writ of Habeas Corpus for Goeller, 103 Ohio St.3d 427, 2004-Ohio-5579, 816 N.E.2d 594, ¶ 6. Brown had an adequate remedy by way of direct appeal from his criminal convictions and sentence to raise his claims that he was denied his right to be physically present and to have counsel present at a critical stage in his trial, as well as to have the portion of the trial in which the trial court issued supplemental jury instructions open to the public. See Bozsik v. Hudson, 110 Ohio St.3d 245, 2006-Ohio-4356, 852 N.E.2d 1200, ¶ 7-9; State v. Davis, 116 Ohio St.3d 404, 2008-Ohio-2, 880 N.E.2d 31, ¶ 90-93.

Judgment affirmed.

Brown, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lan-zinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2010 Ohio 3758, 126 Ohio St. 3d 265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-bradshaw-ohio-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack