Smith v. Smith

Ohio Supreme Court

Smith v. Smith

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

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 15, 2009

Docket2009-0904

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 2009 Ohio 4691 (Smith v. Smith) 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

Smith v. Smith, 2009 Ohio 4691, 914 N.E.2d 1036, 123 Ohio St. 3d 145 (Ohio 2009).

Pincite

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.

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, 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2009 Ohio 4691, 914 N.E.2d 1036, 123 Ohio St. 3d 145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-smith-ohio-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack