Williamson v. Williams

103 Ohio St. 3d 25
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedAugust 18, 2004
DocketNo. 2004-0617
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 103 Ohio St. 3d 25 (Williamson v. Williams) 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
Williamson v. Williams, 103 Ohio St. 3d 25 (Ohio 2004).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} In June 1992, appellant, Charles F. Williamson Jr., was convicted of murder and an accompanying firearm specification and sentenced to prison. On appeal, the court of appeals affirmed his conviction and sentence. State v. Williamson (Sept. 13, 1993), Stark App. No. CA-9068, 1993 WL 385288.

{¶ 2} In January 2004, Williamson filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Allen County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel appellee, Allen Correctional Institution Warden Jesse Williams, to release him from prison. Williamson claimed entitlement to the writ because of police misconduct arising from the presentation of perjured statements and denial of Miranda rights, municipal court improprieties, prosecutorial misconduct, an illegal indictment, and trial court error in permitting a jury instruction on a lesser included offense. The warden moved to dismiss the petition. On March 3, 2004, the court of appeals granted the warden’s motion and dismissed the petition.

{¶ 3} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. Habeas corpus is not an appropriate remedy to raise Williamson’s claims. See, e.g., O’Bannon v. Haskins (1965), 1 Ohio St.2d 110, 111, 30 O.O.2d 430, 205 N.E.2d 16 (perjured testimony); Malone v. Lane, 96 Ohio St.3d 415, 2002-Ohio-4908, 775 N.E.2d 527, ¶ 4 (denial of Miranda rights); Harris v. Bagley, 97 Ohio St.3d 98, 2002-Ohio-5369, 776 N.E.2d 490, ¶ 3 (defect in municipal court’s assumption of jurisdiction when petitioner is subsequently convicted and sentenced upon an indictment); Wilson v. Rogers (1993), 68 Ohio St.3d 130, 131, 623 N.E.2d 1210 (prosecutorial misconduct); Galloway v. Money, 100 Ohio St.3d 74, 2003-Ohio-5060, 796 N.E.2d 528, ¶ 6 (validity or sufficiency of indictment); State ex rel. Richard v. Seidner (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 149, 152, 666 N.E.2d 1134 (instructions on lesser included offense). Williamson had an adequate legal remedy by direct appeal to raise these claims.

Judgment affirmed.

Motee, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor and O’Donnell, JJ., concur. Charles F. Williamson Jr., pro se. Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Thelma Thomas Price, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

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

Related

Wordlow v. Bracy
2022 Ohio 4280 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2022)
State ex rel. Davis v. Sloan
2018 Ohio 2890 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2018)
State ex rel. Menton v. Sloan
2017 Ohio 7661 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2017)
State ex rel. Cutis v. Bunting (Slip Opinion)
2016 Ohio 7431 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2016)
Keith v. Bobby
884 N.E.2d 1067 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2008)
Bozsik v. Hudson
110 Ohio St. 3d 245 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2006)
State ex rel. Hamilton v. Brunner
825 N.E.2d 607 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
103 Ohio St. 3d 25, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williamson-v-williams-ohio-2004.