Gerhart v. Tate
This text of 515 N.E.2d 917 (Gerhart 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.
Opinion
The court of appeals dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, apparently on the theory that appellant has an adequate remedy of law by appeal, delayed appeal, or post-conviction relief under R.C. 2953.21 to 2953.23. We affirm on the basis of Noble v. McMaken (1976), 45 Ohio St. 2d 236, 74 O.O. 2d 379, 344 N.E. 2d 129, in which this court held “ ‘that the availability of the post-conviction remedies provided by Sections 2953.21 to 2953.24, inclusive, Revised Code, is ground for denial of’ a writ of habeas corpus,” citing Freeman v. Maxwell (1965), 4 Ohio St. 2d 4, 33 O.O. 2d 2, 210 N.E. 2d 885, certiorari denied (1966), 382 U.S. 1017. Here, appellant offered no evidence of having exhausted his post-conviction remedies.
The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
515 N.E.2d 917, 33 Ohio St. 3d 120, 1987 Ohio LEXIS 428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gerhart-v-tate-ohio-1987.