McCuller v. Hudson

Ohio Supreme Court

McCuller v. Hudson

121 Ohio St. 3d 168

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 24, 2009

DocketNo. 2008-1986

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 121 Ohio St. 3d 168 (McCuller v. Hudson) 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

McCuller v. Hudson, 121 Ohio St. 3d 168 (Ohio 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of appellant, Charles McCuller, for a writ of habeas corpus. Even assuming that the court of appeals erred in denying McCuller’s motion to amend his petition as moot, the court of appeals correctly dismissed the petition. A reviewing court will not reverse a correct judgment even if the lower court’s reasons were erroneous. Goudlock v. Voorhies, 119 Ohio St.3d 398, 2008-Ohio-4787, 894 N.E.2d 692, ¶ 12. McCuller’s claims raised in his petition and his motion to amend the petition are not cognizable in habeas corpus. Christian v. Gansheimer, 118 Ohio St.3d 235, 2008-Ohio-2219, 887 N.E.2d 1175, ¶ 5 (“An extraordinary writ is not available to challenge the validity or sufficiency of a charging instrument”); State v. Colon, 119 Ohio St.3d 204, 2008-Ohio-3749, 893 N.E.2d 169, ¶ 5 (“the rule announced in Colon I is prospective in nature and applies only to those cases pending on the date when Colon I was announced”).

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

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of appellant, Charles McCuller, for a writ of habeas corpus. Even assuming that the court of appeals erred in denying McCuller’s motion to amend his petition as moot, the court of appeals correctly dismissed the petition. A reviewing court will not reverse a correct judgment even if the lower court’s reasons were erroneous. Goudlock v. Voorhies, 119 Ohio St.3d 398, 2008-Ohio-4787, 894 N.E.2d 692, ¶ 12. McCuller’s claims raised in his petition and his motion to amend the petition are not cognizable in habeas corpus. Christian v. Gansheimer, 118 Ohio St.3d 235, 2008-Ohio-2219, 887 N.E.2d 1175, ¶ 5 (“An extraordinary writ is not available to challenge the validity or sufficiency of a charging instrument”); State v. Colon, 119 Ohio St.3d 204, 2008-Ohio-3749, 893 N.E.2d 169, ¶ 5 (“the rule announced in Colon I is prospective in nature and applies only to those cases pending on the date when Colon I was announced”).

Judgment affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 Ohio St. 3d 168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcculler-v-hudson-ohio-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack