Wright v. Money

Ohio Supreme Court

Wright v. Money

1998 Ohio 216, 82 Ohio St. 3d 424

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 29, 1998

Docket1998-0118

StatusPublished

This text of 1998 Ohio 216 (Wright v. Money) 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

Wright v. Money, 1998 Ohio 216, 82 Ohio St. 3d 424 (Ohio 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 82 Ohio St.3d 424.]

WRIGHT, APPELLANT, v. MONEY, WARDEN, APPELLEE. [Cite as Wright v. Money, 1998-Ohio-216.] Habeas corpus to compel relator’s immediate release from prison—Petition dismissed, when. (No. 98-118—Submitted June 24, 1998—Decided July 29, 1998.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Marion County, No. 9-97-74. __________________ {¶ 1} In 1986, the Summit County Court of Common Pleas convicted appellant, Shawn E. Wright, of aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and felonious assault and sentenced him accordingly. {¶ 2} In 1997, Wright filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Marion County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel his immediate release from prison. Wright claimed that his conviction was unlawful because it was entered by a probate judge while sitting in the probate division of the common pleas court. {¶ 3} The court of appeals sua sponte dismissed the petition. {¶ 4} This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. __________________ Shawn E. Wright, pro se. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 5} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the reasons stated in its opinion. The documentation attached to Wright’s petition established that he was convicted and sentenced by the general division of the common pleas court rather than the probate division. Although his trial court judge might have normally been a probate division judge, the docket of journal entries indicates his assignment to preside over the criminal case in the general division. See, e.g., Sup.R. 3(B)(2), SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

which permits presiding judges of common pleas courts to assign judges of the court “on a temporary basis to serve in another division of the court as required by the business of the court.” 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

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 82 Ohio St.3d 424.]

WRIGHT, APPELLANT, v. MONEY, WARDEN, APPELLEE. [Cite as Wright v. Money, 1998-Ohio-216.] Habeas corpus to compel relator’s immediate release from prison—Petition dismissed, when. (No. 98-118—Submitted June 24, 1998—Decided July 29, 1998.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Marion County, No. 9-97-74. __________________ {¶ 1} In 1986, the Summit County Court of Common Pleas convicted appellant, Shawn E. Wright, of aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and felonious assault and sentenced him accordingly. {¶ 2} In 1997, Wright filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Marion County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel his immediate release from prison. Wright claimed that his conviction was unlawful because it was entered by a probate judge while sitting in the probate division of the common pleas court. {¶ 3} The court of appeals sua sponte dismissed the petition. {¶ 4} This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. __________________ Shawn E. Wright, pro se. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 5} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the reasons stated in its opinion. The documentation attached to Wright’s petition established that he was convicted and sentenced by the general division of the common pleas court rather than the probate division. Although his trial court judge might have normally been a probate division judge, the docket of journal entries indicates his assignment to preside over the criminal case in the general division. See, e.g., Sup.R. 3(B)(2), SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

which permits presiding judges of common pleas courts to assign judges of the court “on a temporary basis to serve in another division of the court as required by the business of the court.” Judgment affirmed. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1998 Ohio 216, 82 Ohio St. 3d 424, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-money-ohio-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack