Ullman v. Seiter

Ohio Supreme Court

Ullman v. Seiter

479 N.E.2d 875, 18 Ohio St. 3d 59, 18 Ohio B. 92, 1985 Ohio LEXIS 395

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 26, 1985

DocketNo. 84-1791

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 479 N.E.2d 875 (Ullman v. Seiter) 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

Ullman v. Seiter, 479 N.E.2d 875, 18 Ohio St. 3d 59, 18 Ohio B. 92, 1985 Ohio LEXIS 395 (Ohio 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an’appeal as of right from the dismissal by the Court of Appeals for Franklin County of an original action seeking a writ of habeas corpus directed against the Director of the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction and the Superintendent of the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility.

Appellant, Frank D. Ullman, was indicted on July 2, 1974 for aggravated murder -without specification and, upon waiver of trial by jury, was tried to a single judge in Stark County and on conviction was sentenced to life imprisonment on September 27, 1974. The basis asserted for habeas corpus relief was that the sentencing court was without jurisdiction inasmuch as R.C. 2945.06 required that one charged with an offense punishable by death should be tried to a court composed of three judges.

[60]*60Questions were raised below as to whether the Court of Appeals for Franklin County had jurisdiction in the proceeding and/or jurisdiction of the Superintendent of the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility. While the' court of appeals found it had no jurisdiction over the appellee superintendent, it did nonetheless reach a determination on the merits of the petition. In so doing, it determined that no cause of action was stated because the sentencing court had jurisdiction. We agree with the merit determination.

Effective January 1, 1974, R.C. 2929.03 and 2929.04 required an allegation and proof of an aggravating specification as a predicate for imposition of the death penalty. No such allegation was made, so that at the time of appellant’s waiver of jury trial and his ultimate trial he was not eligible under the provisions of R.C. 2945.06 for trial by a three-judge panel.

For reason of the foregoing, the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the original action in habeas corpus is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Celebrezze, C.J., Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown, Douglas and Wright, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

This is an’appeal as of right from the dismissal by the Court of Appeals for Franklin County of an original action seeking a writ of habeas corpus directed against the Director of the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction and the Superintendent of the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility.

Appellant, Frank D. Ullman, was indicted on July 2, 1974 for aggravated murder -without specification and, upon waiver of trial by jury, was tried to a single judge in Stark County and on conviction was sentenced to life imprisonment on September 27, 1974. The basis asserted for habeas corpus relief was that the sentencing court was without jurisdiction inasmuch as R.C. 2945.06 required that one charged with an offense punishable by death should be tried to a court composed of three judges.

[60]*60Questions were raised below as to whether the Court of Appeals for Franklin County had jurisdiction in the proceeding and/or jurisdiction of the Superintendent of the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility. While the' court of appeals found it had no jurisdiction over the appellee superintendent, it did nonetheless reach a determination on the merits of the petition. In so doing, it determined that no cause of action was stated because the sentencing court had jurisdiction. We agree with the merit determination.

Effective January 1, 1974, R.C. 2929.03 and 2929.04 required an allegation and proof of an aggravating specification as a predicate for imposition of the death penalty. No such allegation was made, so that at the time of appellant’s waiver of jury trial and his ultimate trial he was not eligible under the provisions of R.C. 2945.06 for trial by a three-judge panel.

For reason of the foregoing, the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the original action in habeas corpus is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Celebrezze, C.J., Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown, Douglas and Wright, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

479 N.E.2d 875, 18 Ohio St. 3d 59, 18 Ohio B. 92, 1985 Ohio LEXIS 395, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ullman-v-seiter-ohio-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack