Smith v. Smith

2009 Ohio 4691, 914 N.E.2d 1036, 123 Ohio St. 3d 145

Opinion

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of appellant, Tony D. Smith, for a writ of habeas corpus, for the reasons stated in its opinion. Smith’s claim that the jury-verdict forms did not list the essential elements of his criminal offense is not cognizable in habeas corpus. Wells v. Hudson, 113 Ohio St.3d 308, 2007-Ohio-1955, 865 N.E.2d 46, ¶ 8. Nor is Smith’s claim alleging that the jury failed to specify the amount of drugs involved or the degree of the offense cognizable in habeas corpus. See State ex rel. Wynn v. Baker (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 464, 465, 575 N.E.2d 208. Finally, Smith had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law by appeal to raise his claim of sentencing error. State ex rel. Hughley v. McMonagle, 121 Ohio St.3d 536, 2009-Ohio-1703, 905 N.E.2d 1220, ¶ 1.

Judgment affirmed.

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