Rodgers v. Capots
| Decision Date | 06 October 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-1724,92-1724 |
| Citation | 619 N.E.2d 685,67 Ohio St.3d 435 |
| Parties | RODGERS, Appellant, v. CAPOTS, Chairman, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Appellant, Otis L. Rodgers, Sr., filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of Appeals for Allen County, alleging that appellees, Raymond E. Capots, Chairman of the Ohio Parole Board, and Harry K. Russell, Warden of the Lima Correctional Institution where appellant is imprisoned, are unlawfully confining him. Appellant contended that he was being denied parole eligibility at a time when his codefendants, two younger white women, had been paroled. The court of appeals dismissed the petition, finding habeas corpus "is inappropriate to test the validity of Ohio's 'parole eligibility hearing date scheme.' "
The cause is before this court upon an appeal as of right.
Otis L. Rodgers, Sr., pro se.
Habeas corpus is not the proper remedy to address every concern a prisoner has about his legal rights or status. R.C. 2725.05 states:
Petitioner does not question the jurisdiction of the trial court; he questions the constitutionality of R.C. 2967.13 (parole eligibility) as applied to him. Testing this constitutional issue is not the function of the state writ of habeas corpus, which is not coextensive with the federal writ. Brewer v. Dahlberg (C.A.6, 1991), 942 F.2d 328, 337. Petitioner must elect some other cause of action. Stahl v. Shoemaker (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 351, 354, 4 O.O.3d 485, 487-488, 364 N.E.2d 286, 287-288.
Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gamble
...a sentencing provision as being facially suspect, especially that of parole, through a writ of habeas corpus. Rodgers v. Capots , 67 Ohio St.3d 435, 436, 619 N.E.2d 685 (1993), citing Stahl v. Shoemaker , 50 Ohio St.2d 351, 354, 364 N.E.2d 286 (1977). According to the Ohio Supreme Court, an......
-
Hattie v. Anderson
...corpus is not the proper remedy to address every concern a prisoner has about his legal rights or status. Rodgers v. Kapots (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 435, 436, 619 N.E.2d 685, 686. Habeas corpus is unavailable to complain about parole conditions which are restrictive of the petitioner's liberty......
-
State ex rel. McGrath v. Gilligan, 2005 Ohio 619 (OH 2/16/2005), Case No. 83884.
...N.E.2d 461. {¶ 6} Additionally, habeas corpus is not the proper tool to challenge the constitutionality of a statute. In Rodgers v. Kapots, 67 Ohio St.3d 435, 436, 1993-Ohio-65, 619 N.E.2d 685, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled: "Petitioner does not question the jurisdiction of the trial cour......
-
Daniel v. State
...habeas corpus is not coextensive with the federal writ." Smirnoff, 84 Ohio St.3d at 168, 702 N.E.2d 423, citing Rodgers v. Capots (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 435, 436, 619 N.E.2d 685. {¶ 7} Third, a violation of R.C. 2901.13 does not divest the trial court of jurisdiction and is thus not cognizab......