Freeman v. Tate

Ohio Supreme Court

Freeman v. Tate

605 N.E.2d 14, 65 Ohio St. 3d 440

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 11, 1992

DocketNo. 92-993

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 605 N.E.2d 14 (Freeman v. Tate) 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

Freeman v. Tate, 605 N.E.2d 14, 65 Ohio St. 3d 440 (Ohio 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. Res judicata precludes the filing of successive habeas corpus petitions. Hudlin v. Alexander (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 153, 586 N.E.2d 86. In this case, the record demonstrates that appellant has previously filed at least one habeas corpus action, No. 1352, in the Court of Appeals for Scioto County, in which the expiration-of-sentence claim could have been raised. Moreover, his claim that he misunderstood sentencing procedures does not challenge the jurisdiction of the sentencing court. Wireman v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 322, 528 N.E.2d 173.

As the court of appeals essentially held, appellant’s claim of segregation from the general prison population does not challenge the jurisdiction of the sentencing court, and we decline to speculate on the present facts whether any remedy of which the court of appeals has original jurisdiction might be applicable, since appellant presented no evidence of an illegal detention.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright, H. Brown and Resnick, 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. Res judicata precludes the filing of successive habeas corpus petitions. Hudlin v. Alexander (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 153, 586 N.E.2d 86. In this case, the record demonstrates that appellant has previously filed at least one habeas corpus action, No. 1352, in the Court of Appeals for Scioto County, in which the expiration-of-sentence claim could have been raised. Moreover, his claim that he misunderstood sentencing procedures does not challenge the jurisdiction of the sentencing court. Wireman v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 322, 528 N.E.2d 173.

As the court of appeals essentially held, appellant’s claim of segregation from the general prison population does not challenge the jurisdiction of the sentencing court, and we decline to speculate on the present facts whether any remedy of which the court of appeals has original jurisdiction might be applicable, since appellant presented no evidence of an illegal detention.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

605 N.E.2d 14, 65 Ohio St. 3d 440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/freeman-v-tate-ohio-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack