State ex rel. Raglin v. Brigano

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Raglin v. Brigano

1998 Ohio 222, 82 Ohio St. 3d 410

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 29, 1998

Docket1997-2464

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 1998 Ohio 222 (State ex rel. Raglin v. Brigano) 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. Raglin v. Brigano, 1998 Ohio 222, 82 Ohio St. 3d 410 (Ohio 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 82 Ohio St.3d 410.]

THE STATE EX REL. RAGLIN, APPELLANT, v. BRIGANO, WARDEN, APPELLEE. [Cite as State ex rel. Raglin v. Brigano, 1998-Ohio-222.] Habeas corpus to compel relator’s immediate release from prison—Petition dismissed, when. (No. 97-2464—Submitted June 24, 1998—Decided July 29, 1998.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Warren County, No. CA97-08-086. __________________ {¶ 1} In 1995, appellant, Donnell Raglin, was convicted of involuntary manslaughter with an accompanying firearm specification and was sentenced to a term of five to ten years in prison. {¶ 2} In 1997, Raglin filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Warren County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel his immediate release from prison. Raglin claimed that his conviction was void because his trial court improperly amended his indictment from an original charge of murder to a charge of involuntary manslaughter. {¶ 3} The court of appeals granted the Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion of appellee, Raglin’s prison warden, and dismissed the petition. {¶ 4} This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. __________________ Donnell Raglin, pro se. Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Karen L. Killian, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 5} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the reasons stated in its opinion. Raglin’s claim challenges the validity or sufficiency of his SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

indictment, is nonjurisdictional in nature, and should have been raised in an appeal of his criminal conviction rather than in habeas corpus. See State ex rel. Richard v. Seidner (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 149, 151, 666 N.E.2d 1134, 1136 (“Richard essentially challenged the validity of his amended indictment, a claim which is not cognizable in habeas corpus.”). 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

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 82 Ohio St.3d 410.]

THE STATE EX REL. RAGLIN, APPELLANT, v. BRIGANO, WARDEN, APPELLEE. [Cite as State ex rel. Raglin v. Brigano, 1998-Ohio-222.] Habeas corpus to compel relator’s immediate release from prison—Petition dismissed, when. (No. 97-2464—Submitted June 24, 1998—Decided July 29, 1998.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Warren County, No. CA97-08-086. __________________ {¶ 1} In 1995, appellant, Donnell Raglin, was convicted of involuntary manslaughter with an accompanying firearm specification and was sentenced to a term of five to ten years in prison. {¶ 2} In 1997, Raglin filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Warren County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel his immediate release from prison. Raglin claimed that his conviction was void because his trial court improperly amended his indictment from an original charge of murder to a charge of involuntary manslaughter. {¶ 3} The court of appeals granted the Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion of appellee, Raglin’s prison warden, and dismissed the petition. {¶ 4} This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. __________________ Donnell Raglin, pro se. Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Karen L. Killian, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 5} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the reasons stated in its opinion. Raglin’s claim challenges the validity or sufficiency of his SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

indictment, is nonjurisdictional in nature, and should have been raised in an appeal of his criminal conviction rather than in habeas corpus. See State ex rel. Richard v. Seidner (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 149, 151, 666 N.E.2d 1134, 1136 (“Richard essentially challenged the validity of his amended indictment, a claim which is not cognizable in habeas corpus.”). Judgment affirmed. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1998 Ohio 222, 82 Ohio St. 3d 410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-raglin-v-brigano-ohio-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack