Mitchell v. Smith

898 N.E.2d 47, 120 Ohio St. 3d 278
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided December 2, 2008·No. No. 2008-1521·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of appellant, Ervin L. Mitchell, for a writ of habeas corpus because a claimed violation of Crim.R. 32(C) does not entitle an inmate to immediate release from prison. Instead, if a violation is established, “the appropriate remedy is resentencing instead of outright release.” McAllister v. Smith, 119 Ohio St.3d 163, 2008-Ohio-3881, 892 N.E.2d 914, ¶ 9.1

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

Mitchell v. Smith, 898 N.E.2d 47, 120 Ohio St. 3d 278 (Ohio 2008).

898 N.E.2d 47 (Mitchell v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State ex rel. DeWine v. Burge
2011 Ohio 235 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2011)