Stearns v. Sheldon, 08 Ca 68 (8-26-2008)
This text of 2008 Ohio 4347 (Stearns v. Sheldon, 08 Ca 68 (8-26-2008)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
{¶ 2} "A writ of habeas corpus is warranted in certain extraordinary circumstances where there is an unlawful restraint of a person's liberty and there is no adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law."Johnson v. Timmeman-Cooper (2001),
{¶ 3} R.C.
{¶ 4} Writ not allowed
{¶ 5} If it appears that a person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer under process issued by a court or magistrate, or by virtue of the judgment or order of a court of record, and that the court or magistrate had jurisdiction to issue the process, render the judgment, or make the order, the writ of habeas corpus shall not be allowed. If the jurisdiction appears after the writ is allowed, the person shall not be discharged by reason of any informality or defect in the process, judgment, or order. *Page 3
{¶ 6} Petitioner argues Judge Spon lacked jurisdiction to sign the arrest warrant because he had recused himself from Petitioner's cases. Petitioner argues the signature of a recused judge is void citing Stern v. Mascio,
{¶ 7} We do not need to address Petitioner's contention because we find he is lawfully detained even if Judge Spon's signing of the warrant was void.1
{¶ 8} R.C.
{¶ 9} WRIT DENIED.
{¶ 10} COSTS TO PETITIONER.
{¶ 11} IT IS SO ORDERED.
*Page 4Wise, J., Gwin, P. J., and Farmer, J., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2008 Ohio 4347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stearns-v-sheldon-08-ca-68-8-26-2008-ohioctapp-2008.