Gooden v. Bradshaw
This text of 2012 Ohio 2013 (Gooden 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.
Opinion
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the petition of appellant, Jesse L. Gooden, for a writ of habeas corpus to compel his immediate release from prison. Gooden had an adequate remedy by way of appeal to raise his claim of sentencing error. Roberts v. Knab, 131 Ohio St.3d 60, 2012-Ohio-56, 960 N.E.2d 457, ¶ 1. And as the court of appeals recognized, “[t]he different numbering of the counts in the indictment and verdict forms was neither error nor prejudicial to” Gooden. Gooden v. Bradshaw, 5th Dist. No. 11CA55, 2011Ohio-5300, 2011 WL 4865286, ¶ 3. See State v. Washington, 9th Dist. No. 18199, 1997 WL 775666, *7 (Nov. 26, 1997).
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2012 Ohio 2013, 132 Ohio St. 3d 45, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gooden-v-bradshaw-ohio-2012.