State Ex Rel. Smith v. Cuyahoga County Sheriff's Department

Ohio Supreme Court

State Ex Rel. Smith v. Cuyahoga County Sheriff's Department

2010 Ohio 4389, 935 N.E.2d 394, 126 Ohio St. 3d 482

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 22, 2010

Docket2010-0906

StatusPublished

This text of 2010 Ohio 4389 (State Ex Rel. Smith v. Cuyahoga County Sheriff's Department) 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. Smith v. Cuyahoga County Sheriff's Department, 2010 Ohio 4389, 935 N.E.2d 394, 126 Ohio St. 3d 482 (Ohio 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the request of appellant, Gregory Smith, 1 for a writ of habeas corpus to compel his release from confinement. Smith has an adequate remedy by way of appeal to raise his jurisdictional claim concerning his resentencing. See Patterson v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 120 Ohio St.3d 311, 2008-Ohio-6147, 898 N.E.2d 950, ¶ 8; State ex rel. Pruitt v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 125 Ohio St.3d 402, 2010-Ohio-1808, 928 N.E.2d 722, ¶ 4. Moreover, res judicata bars Smith from filing a successive habeas corpus action to raise a claim that he could have raised in his previous action. [Smith] DeDonno v. Bradshaw, 124 Ohio St.3d 1413, 2009-Ohio-6816, 919 N.E.2d 213; Keith v. Kelley, 125 Ohio St.3d 161, 2010-Ohio-1807, 926 N.E.2d 646, ¶ 1.

Judgment affirmed.

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

1

. Although Smith claims that his last name is now DeDonno, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction still lists his last name as Smith.

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 denying the request of appellant, Gregory Smith, 1 for a writ of habeas corpus to compel his release from confinement. Smith has an adequate remedy by way of appeal to raise his jurisdictional claim concerning his resentencing. See Patterson v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 120 Ohio St.3d 311, 2008-Ohio-6147, 898 N.E.2d 950, ¶ 8; State ex rel. Pruitt v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 125 Ohio St.3d 402, 2010-Ohio-1808, 928 N.E.2d 722, ¶ 4. Moreover, res judicata bars Smith from filing a successive habeas corpus action to raise a claim that he could have raised in his previous action. [Smith] DeDonno v. Bradshaw, 124 Ohio St.3d 1413, 2009-Ohio-6816, 919 N.E.2d 213; Keith v. Kelley, 125 Ohio St.3d 161, 2010-Ohio-1807, 926 N.E.2d 646, ¶ 1.

Judgment affirmed.

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

1

. Although Smith claims that his last name is now DeDonno, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction still lists his last name as Smith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2010 Ohio 4389, 935 N.E.2d 394, 126 Ohio St. 3d 482, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-smith-v-cuyahoga-county-sheriffs-department-ohio-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack