Jackson v. Rose

679 N.E.2d 684, 79 Ohio St. 3d 51
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided June 18, 1997·No. No. 97-30·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Jackson asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his habeas corpus petition. As the court of appeals held, however, the failure to comply with R.C. 2945.05 may be remedied only in a direct appeal from a criminal conviction. State v. Pless (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 333, 658 N.E.2d 766, paragraph two of the syllabus. A claimed violation of R.C. 2945.05 is not the proper subject for habeas corpus relief. 74 Ohio St.3d at 339, 658 N.E.2d at 770.

Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals properly dismissed Jackson’s habeas corpus petition. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

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

Jackson v. Rose, 679 N.E.2d 684, 79 Ohio St. 3d 51 (Ohio 1997).

679 N.E.2d 684 (Jackson v. Rose) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kirklin v. Enlow
2000 Ohio 217 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2000)
State ex rel. Billings v. Friedland
2000 Ohio 317 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2000)
State ex rel. Earl v. Mitchell
1999 Ohio 54 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1999)
State ex rel. Larkins v. Aurelius
1998 Ohio 661 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1998)
State ex rel. Collins v. Leonard
1997 Ohio 282 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1997)
Jackson v. Rose
1997 Ohio 179 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1997)