Turner v. Brunsman

2009 Ohio 5588, 917 N.E.2d 269, 123 Ohio St. 3d 445
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided October 28, 2009·No. 2009-1129·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of appellant, Donald Turner, for a writ of habeas corpus. Turner’s claim of nonjurisdictional sentencing errors is not cognizable in habeas corpus. See, e.g., Dunn v. Smith, 119 Ohio St.3d 364, 2008-Ohio-4565, 894 N.E.2d 312, ¶ 10. If, as Turner claims, the trial court refuses to issue a revised sentencing entry, he may compel the court to act through an action for a writ of mandamus or a writ of procedendo. Id. at ¶ 9.

Judgment affirmed.

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

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

Turner v. Brunsman, 2009 Ohio 5588, 917 N.E.2d 269, 123 Ohio St. 3d 445 (Ohio 2009).

2009 Ohio 5588 (Turner v. Brunsman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State ex rel. Turner v. Corrigan
29 N.E.3d 962 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2015)
Roberts v. Knab
2012 Ohio 56 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2012)
State ex rel. Austin v. Knab
2010 Ohio 4982 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2010)