Blackburn v. Jago
| Decision Date | 12 October 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-1023,88-1023 |
| Citation | Blackburn v. Jago, 39 Ohio St.3d 139, 529 N.E.2d 929 (Ohio 1988) |
| Parties | BLACKBURN v. JAGO, Supt., London Correctional Institute. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Bruce Robert Blackburn, pro se.
Habeas corpus is not a proper remedy for reviewing errors of sentencing by a court of competent jurisdiction. Walker v. Maxwell (1965), 1 Ohio St.2d 136, 30 O.O.2d 487, 205 N.E.2d 394. Appeal or postconviction relief would be the proper remedy. Since it appears from the face of his petition that petitioner has sought and been denied postconviction relief on this issue, the matter is res judicata. See Anderson v. Maxwell (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 188, 39 O.O.2d 196, 226 N.E.2d 103. Accordingly, the writ is denied.
WRIT DENIED.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
35 cases
-
State v. Simpkins
...any alleged sentencing error. State ex rel. Sneed v. Anderson, 114 Ohio St.3d 11, 2007-Ohio-2454, 866 N.E.2d 1084; Blackburn v. Jago (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 139, 529 N.E.2d 929. In Payne, we held that "defendants with a voidable sentence are entitled to resentencing only upon a successful cha......
-
State v. Fischer
...83 Ohio St.3d 427, 428, 700 N.E.2d 588; Majoros v. Collins (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 442, 443, 596 N.E.2d 1038; Blackburn v. Jago (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 139, 529 N.E.2d 929. A sentence is not “void ab initio” if a mistake was made during its imposition; it is voidable. “Void” and “voidable” are ......
-
State v. Williams
...Ohio St.3d 427, 428, 700 N.E.2d 588 (1998) ; Majoros v. Collins, 64 Ohio St.3d 442, 443, 596 N.E.2d 1038 (1992) ; Blackburn v. Jago, 39 Ohio St.3d 139, 529 N.E.2d 929 (1988).{¶ 44} Thus, until recently, our precedent held that sentencing errors are to be corrected on appeal and are not juri......
-
State v. Harris
...that sentencing errors are nonjurisdictional and that these errors are properly corrected on appeal. See, e.g., Blackburn v. Jago, 39 Ohio St.3d 139, 529 N.E.2d 929 (1988) (appeal or postconviction relief is proper to remedy sentencing error); Majoros v. Collins, 64 Ohio St.3d 442, 443, 596......
Get Started for Free