From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Smith

Supreme Court of Ohio
Sep 15, 2009
914 N.E.2d 1036 (Ohio 2009)

Opinion

No. 2009-0904.

Submitted September 2, 2009.

Decided September 15, 2009.

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Richland County, No. 09-CA-12, 2009-Ohio-1857.

Tony D. Smith, pro se.

Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and Elizabeth A. Matune, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.


{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of appellant, Tony D. Smith, for a writ of habeas corpus, for the reasons stated in its opinion. Smith's claim that the jury-verdict forms did not list the essential elements of his criminal offense is not cognizable in habeas corpus. Wells v. Hudson, 113 Ohio St.3d 308, 2007-Ohio-1955, 865 N.E.2d 46, ¶ 8. Nor is Smith's claim alleging that the jury failed to specify the amount of drugs involved or the degree of the offense cognizable in habeas corpus. See State ex rel. Wynn v. Baker (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 464, 465, 575 N.E.2d 208. Finally, Smith had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law by appeal to raise his claim of sentencing error. State ex rel. Hughley v. McMonagle, 121 Ohio St.3d 536, 2009-Ohio-1703, 905 N.E.2d 1220, ¶ 1.

Judgment affirmed.

MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O'CONNOR, O'DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Smith v. Smith

Supreme Court of Ohio
Sep 15, 2009
914 N.E.2d 1036 (Ohio 2009)
Case details for

Smith v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:SMITH, APPELLANT, v. SMITH, WARDEN, APPELLEE

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Sep 15, 2009

Citations

914 N.E.2d 1036 (Ohio 2009)
914 N.E.2d 1036
2009 Ohio 4691

Citing Cases

State ex rel. Harsh v. Sheets

{¶ 3} Finally, Harsh's claims are not cognizable in habeas corpus, and he had an adequate remedy by way of…

State ex rel. Gibson v. Sloan

{¶ 8} Habeas corpus will not lie to challenge the propriety of jury-verdict forms. Smith v. Smith, 123 Ohio…