Cool v. Turner
This text of 2013 Ohio 85 (Cool v. Turner) 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 dismissing the petition of appellant, Michael E. Cool, for a writ of habeas corpus. He had an adequate remedy by appeal to raise his claim that the trial court erred in denying his motion for jail-time credit. See State ex rel. Rudolph v. Horton, 119 Ohio St.3d 350, 2008-Ohio-4476, 894 N.E.2d 49, ¶ 3. And the fact that Cool has already unsuccessfully invoked alternate remedies in the ordinary course of law by motion and appeal to raise this claim does not entitle him to extraordinary relief in habeas corpus to relitigate the matter. Heddleston v. Mack, 84 Ohio St.3d 213, 702 N.E.2d 1198 (1998). Res judicata bars Cool from using habeas corpus to obtain a successive appellate review of the same claim. State ex rel. Harsh v. Sheets, 132 Ohio St.3d 198, 2012-Ohio-2368, 970 N.E.2d 926, ¶ 1.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2013 Ohio 85, 985 N.E.2d 462, 135 Ohio St. 3d 185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cool-v-turner-ohio-2013.