Knowles v. Voorhies

2009 Ohio 1109, 903 N.E.2d 637, 121 Ohio St. 3d 271
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided March 18, 2009·No. 2008-2261·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant, Howard L. Knowles, did not attach to his petition one of the bindover entries he challenges. Thus, his petition is fatally defective and subject to dismissal because he did not attach copies of all of his pertinent commitment papers. Goudlock v. Voorhies, 119 Ohio St.3d 398, 2008-Ohio-4787, 894 N.E.2d 692, ¶ 14.

Judgment affirmed.

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

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

Knowles v. Voorhies, 2009 Ohio 1109, 903 N.E.2d 637, 121 Ohio St. 3d 271 (Ohio 2009).

2009 Ohio 1109 (Knowles v. Voorhies) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State ex rel. Jones v. Bradshaw
2009 Ohio 5586 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2009)
Shie v. Smith
2009 Ohio 4079 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2009)