Turner v. Brunsman
This text of 2009 Ohio 5588 (Turner v. Brunsman) 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.
Opinion
{¶ 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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2009 Ohio 5588, 917 N.E.2d 269, 123 Ohio St. 3d 445, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turner-v-brunsman-ohio-2009.