Woodfork v. Russell

529 N.E.2d 928, 39 Ohio St. 3d 138, 1988 Ohio LEXIS 320
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided October 12, 1988·No. No. 88-952·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The court of appeals held that the counts of the indictment at issue were phrased in terms of the statute in compliance with Crim. R. 7 and denied the writ. Even if the indictment had been flawed, appeal or post-conviction relief, not habeas corpus, is the proper remedy. Walker v. Maxwell (1965), 1 Ohio St. 2d 136, 30 O.O. 2d 487, 205 N.E. 2d 394; Freeman v. Maxwell (1965), 4 Ohio St. 2d 4, 33 O.O. 2d 2, 210 N.E. 2d 885. Habeas corpus is not a proper remedy when a person is confined by judgment or order of a court that had jurisdiction in the matter. Stahl v. Shoemaker (1977), 50 Ohio St. 2d 351, 4 O.O. 3d 485, 364 N.E. 2d 286. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

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

Woodfork v. Russell, 529 N.E.2d 928, 39 Ohio St. 3d 138, 1988 Ohio LEXIS 320 (Ohio 1988).

529 N.E.2d 928 (Woodfork v. Russell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Larson v. Kaley
740 N.E.2d 691 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2000)
Woodfork v. Russell
534 N.E.2d 359 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1988)