State ex rel. Norris v. Boggins

685 N.E.2d 1250, 80 Ohio St. 3d 296
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided November 19, 1997·No. No. 97-223·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Norris asserts that the court of appeals erred by denying the writ. Norris’s claim, however, is meritless for the following reasons.

First, habeas corpus, rather than mandamus, is the appropriate action for persons claiming entitlement to immediate release from prison. State ex rel. Lemmon v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 186, 188, 677 N.E.2d 347, 349. Second, Norris has or had adequate legal remedies by an appeal or [297]*297petition for postconviction relief to challenge any sentencing error. State ex rel Massie v. Rogers (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 449, 450, 674 N.E.2d 1383, 1383.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

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

State ex rel. Norris v. Boggins, 685 N.E.2d 1250, 80 Ohio St. 3d 296 (Ohio 1997).

685 N.E.2d 1250 (State ex rel. Norris v. Boggins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Norris v. Wilson, Unpublished Decision (8-24-2005)
2005 Ohio 4594 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2005)
State ex rel. Norris v. Boggins
1997 Ohio 115 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1997)