Majoros v. Collins, 91-2334
| Decision Date | 26 August 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-2334,91-2334 |
| Citation | 596 N.E.2d 1038,64 Ohio St.3d 442 |
| Parties | MAJOROS, Appellant, v. COLLINS, Warden, Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
On May 17, 1983, the Cuyahoga County Grand Jury returned a four-count indictment against appellant, Andrew Majoros. The counts included aggravated murder with firearm and death penalty specifications, aggravated robbery, and kidnapping. The Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County convicted the appellant of aggravated murder, kidnapping, and the gun specification and sentenced him to a term of thirty years to life imprisonment on the aggravated murder conviction, a concurrent term for kidnapping, and a three-year term of actual incarceration on the gun specification. Appellant is in the custody of Warden Terry L. Collins, appellee, at the Lorain Correctional Institute.
On August 30, 1991, appellant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of Appeals for Lorain County. The petition alleged that the court of common pleas violated the ex post facto provisions of R.C. 2929.61(D) by sentencing the appellant pursuant to a statute that was not effective at the time of his indictment. Appellee filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that a claim of sentencing errors is not cognizable in habeas corpus. The court of appeals granted the motion, holding that habeas corpus is not the proper remedy for reviewing errors in sentencing by a court of competent jurisdiction.
The cause is before this court upon an appeal as of right.
Andrew A. Majoros, pro se.
Lee I. Fisher, Atty. Gen., and John J. Gideon, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
We affirm the decision of the court of appeals. We have consistently held that sentencing errors are not jurisdictional and are not cognizable in habeas corpus. State ex rel. Wynn v. Baker (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 464, 575 N.E.2d 208; Blackburn v. Jago (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 139, 529 N.E.2d 929; Walker v. Maxwell (1965), 1 Ohio St.2d 136, 30 O.O.2d 487, 205 N.E.2d 394.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Simpkins
...in the exercise of its authority. We have held consistently that sentencing errors are not jurisdictional. Majoros v. Collins (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 442, 443, 596 N.E.2d 1038. We have confined defendants to their adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law, by appeal and postconviction r......
-
State v. Henderson
...definition of a void judgment and recognize that sentences containing errors are voidable. See Majoros v. Collins , 64 Ohio St.3d 442, 443, 596 N.E.2d 1038 (1992) ; State v. Payne , 114 Ohio St.3d 502, 2007-Ohio-4642, 873 N.E.2d 306, ¶ 27 ; State ex rel. Shackleford v. Moore , 116 Ohio St.3......
-
State v. Fischer
...not render a judgment void. State ex rel. Massie v. Rogers (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 449, 449–450, 674 N.E.2d 1383; Majoros v. Collins (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 442, 443, 596 N.E.2d 1038. Rather, void sentences are typically those in which a court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the defenda......
-
State v. Williams
...2007-Ohio-6462, 878 N.E.2d 1035, ¶ 5 ; Childers v. Wingard, 83 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 s......