Douglas v. Money
| Decision Date | 28 April 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 98-2554,98-2554 |
| Citation | 85 Ohio St.3d 348,708 N.E.2d 697 |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
| Parties | DOUGLAS, Appellant, v. MONEY, Warden, Appellee. |
The court of appeals sua sponte dismissed his petition.
This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right.
James Michael Douglas, pro se.
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Stuart W. Harris, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Douglas asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his habeas corpus petition. For the following reasons, Douglas's assertion lacks merit.
First, application of the challenged statutes, rules, and guidelines to Douglas does not constitute ex post facto imposition of punishment. State ex rel. Henderson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 267, 268, 690 N.E.2d 887, 888; State ex rel. Crigger v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 270, 272, 695 N.E.2d 254, 256.
Second, state prisoners challenging the conditions of their confinement have an adequate legal remedy by way of an action under Section 1983, Title 42, U.S.Code. See State ex rel. Carter v. Schotten (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 89, 91-92, 637 N.E.2d 306, 309.
Third, Douglas's claims of conspiracy and bias are not cognizable in habeas corpus. Cf. Wireman v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 322, 528 N.E.2d 173, 174.
Fourth, the issue of whether Douglas made an intelligent, knowing, and voluntary guilty plea is a matter to be resolved by motion to withdraw the guilty plea, direct appeal, or postconviction proceedings, rather than in habeas corpus. See Pollock v. Morris (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 117, 117-118, 518 N.E.2d 1205, 1206; cf. State ex rel. Tran v. McGrath (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 45, 46-47, 676 N.E.2d 108, 109.
Fifth, habeas corpus is not the appropriate action to challenge the validity or sufficiency of an indictment. State ex rel. Raglin v. Brigano (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 410, 696 N.E.2d 585.
Finally, habeas corpus is generally appropriate in the criminal context only if the petitioner is entitled to immediate release from prison. State ex rel. Smirnoff v. Greene (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 165, 167, 702 N.E.2d 423, 425. At best, Douglas's claims relate to an earlier consideration of parole rather than entitlement to immediate release from prison. Crigger, 82 Ohio St.3d at 272, 695 N.E.2d at 256.
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robinson v. Tambi, Case No. 03CA17 (OH 5/28/2004)
...Facto Clause. See State ex rel. Bealler v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 36, 740 N.E.2d 1100; Douglas v. Money (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 348, 349, 708 N.E.2d 697. "`Changes in the parole matrix or parole guidelines may constitutionally be applied to inmates even though the chang......
-
Starkey v. Shoop
...by motion to withdraw the guilty plea, direct appeal, or postconviction proceedings, rather than in habeas corpus." Douglas v. Money, 85 Ohio St. 3d 348, 349, 1999-Ohio-381, 708 N.E.2d 697 (1999), citing Morris, 35 Ohio St.3d at 117-118, 518 N.E.2d 1205 (1988). Therefore, "allegations conce......
-
Freed v. Bova, 99908
...mandamus. The court also ruled that the relator's vague and conclusory allegations were insufficient to sustain his claim. Douglas v. Money, 85 Ohio St.3d 348, 1999-Ohio-381, 708 N.E.2d 697. Thus, mandamus will not issue because Freed has an adequate remedy at law. {¶10} This court denies F......
-
Gibson v. Wilson, 2009 Ohio 829 (Ohio App. 2/20/2009)
...St.3d 410, 696 N.E.2d 585, 1998-Ohio-222; Thornton v. Russell, 82 Ohio St.3d 93, 694 N.E.2d 464, 1998-Ohio-268; Douglas v. Money, 85 Ohio St.3d 348, 708 N.E.2d 697, 1999-Ohio-381; State ex rel. Bragg v. Seidner, 92 Ohio St.3d 87, 748 N.E.2d 532, 2001-Ohio-152; and Buoscio v. Bagley, 91 Ohio......