Gooden v. Bradshaw

2012 Ohio 2013, 132 Ohio St. 3d 45
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedMay 8, 2012
Docket2011-1943
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

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.

Bluebook
Gooden v. Bradshaw, 2012 Ohio 2013, 132 Ohio St. 3d 45 (Ohio 2012).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

*46 Jesse L. Gooden, pro se. Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Gene D. Park, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

{¶ 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.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp, and McGee Brown, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Taylor v. Bradshaw
2016 Ohio 5067 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2012 Ohio 2013, 132 Ohio St. 3d 45, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gooden-v-bradshaw-ohio-2012.