Wilkerson v. Mitchell

Ohio Supreme Court

Wilkerson v. Mitchell

716 N.E.2d 1157, 87 Ohio St. 3d 52

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided October 13, 1999·No. No. 99-1033·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. Wilkerson’s claims challenge the validity and sufficiency of his indictment and are not cognizable in habeas corpus. See Shie v. Leonard (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 160, 161, 702 N.E.2d 419, 420. Moreover, Wilkerson’s robbery convictions were based on an indictment expressly charging him with those offenses.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. Wilkerson’s claims challenge the validity and sufficiency of his indictment and are not cognizable in habeas corpus. See Shie v. Leonard (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 160, 161, 702 N.E.2d 419, 420. Moreover, Wilkerson’s robbery convictions were based on an indictment expressly charging him with those offenses.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Wilkerson v. Mitchell, 716 N.E.2d 1157, 87 Ohio St. 3d 52 (Ohio 1999).

Pincite

716 N.E.2d 1157 (Wilkerson v. Mitchell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related