State ex rel. Jones v. Bradshaw

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Jones v. Bradshaw

2009 Ohio 5586, 917 N.E.2d 268, 123 Ohio St. 3d 444

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 28, 2009

Docket2009-0958

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2009 Ohio 5586 (State ex rel. Jones v. Bradshaw) 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

State ex rel. Jones v. Bradshaw, 2009 Ohio 5586, 917 N.E.2d 268, 123 Ohio St. 3d 444 (Ohio 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment dismissing the petition of appellant, Shigali Jones, for writs of habeas corpus and mandamus to compel his release from prison. Jones’s habeas corpus claim is fatally defective and subject to dismissal because he did not attach copies of all of his pertinent commitment papers. Knowles v. Voorhies, 121 Ohio St.3d 271, 2009-Ohio-1109, 903 N.E.2d 637. Jones’s mandamus claim lacks merit because it is not the appropriate action to seek release from prison. State ex rel. Gordon v. Murphy, 112 Ohio St.3d 329, 2006-Ohio-6572, 859 N.E.2d 928, ¶ 5.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur. Pfeifer, J., dissents and would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and grant the writ.

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

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment dismissing the petition of appellant, Shigali Jones, for writs of habeas corpus and mandamus to compel his release from prison. Jones’s habeas corpus claim is fatally defective and subject to dismissal because he did not attach copies of all of his pertinent commitment papers. Knowles v. Voorhies, 121 Ohio St.3d 271, 2009-Ohio-1109, 903 N.E.2d 637. Jones’s mandamus claim lacks merit because it is not the appropriate action to seek release from prison. State ex rel. Gordon v. Murphy, 112 Ohio St.3d 329, 2006-Ohio-6572, 859 N.E.2d 928, ¶ 5.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur. Pfeifer, J., dissents and would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and grant the writ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2009 Ohio 5586, 917 N.E.2d 268, 123 Ohio St. 3d 444, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-jones-v-bradshaw-ohio-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack