State, ex rel. Wynn, v. Baker, 90-1725
| Decision Date | 14 August 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-1725,90-1725 |
| Citation | 575 N.E.2d 208,61 Ohio St.3d 464 |
| Parties | The STATE, ex rel. WYNN, Appellant, v. BAKER, Supt., Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
On January 16, 1991, appellant, Turhan Wynn, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of Appeals for Pickaway County, alleging that he is a prisoner at the Orient Correctional Institute and that respondent, David Baker, its superintendent, holds him illegally in custody. The following facts appear in the record:
In 1981, appellant was convicted of grand theft in case No. 163372 in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County. He received a two-to-five-year sentence, to be served concurrently with the sentence in case No. 160701, which is not further described in the record.
In 1982, he was convicted of breaking and entering in the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County and sentenced to a term of one and one-half to five years, "to be served consecutively to the sentence now being served."
Also, in 1982, he was convicted of grand theft in the Court of Common Pleas of Lake County and sentenced to one to five years, "to run concurrently with the sentence from Cuyahoga County Case No. 160701."
In 1986, appellant was granted parole, but he was declared a parole violator in 1989, and parole was revoked. In the court of appeals, appellant contended that the judgment of conviction in case No. 163372 in Cuyahoga County did not state the value of the property taken, which would make it a misdemeanor under R.C. 2913.61 1 and 2945.75, 2 and that the Hamilton County sentence could not have been ordered to be served consecutively with the Cuyahoga County sentence in case No. 163372 because the latter case was a misdemeanor that must be served concurrently with any felony, as required by R.C. 2929.41(A). 3 Therefore, he concluded that his maximum sentence has expired, and he should be discharged.
Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The court of appeals granted appellee's motion holding that habeas corpus is not a proper remedy for reviewing errors of sentencing by a court of competent jurisdiction, citing R.C. 2725.05; Blackburn v. Jago (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 139, 529 N.E.2d 929; and Walker v. Maxwell (1965), 1 Ohio St.2d 136, 30 O.O.2d 487, 205 N.E.2d 394.
The cause is before this court upon an appeal as of right.
Turhan Wynn, pro se.
We affirm the decision of the court of appeals. Habeas corpus relief is not available to appellant because the sentencing error, if there is one, is not jurisdictional. Blackburn, supra.
Judgment affirmed.
1 In 1981, R.C. 2913.61(A) provided:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Daggett v. Bradshaw, Case No. 12 CA 99
...a court of proper jurisdiction. R.C. 2725.05; Majoros v. Collins (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 442, 596 N.E.2d 1038; State ex rel. Wynn v. Baker (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 464, 575 N.E.2d 208. Direct appeal or post-conviction relief is instead the proper avenue to address such alleged errors in sentenci......
-
State v. Miller, CASE NO. 15 BE 0043
...72, 2003-Ohio-3882, ¶ 14, citing R.C. 2725.05; Majoros v. Collins, 64 Ohio St.3d 442, 596 N.E.2d 1038 (1992); State ex rel. Wynn v. Baker, 61 Ohio St.3d 464, 575 N.E.2d 208 (1991). Where direct appeal and postconviction relief are available to challenge a sentence, a habeas petition may pro......
-
Pocsik v. Mohr
...72, 2003-Ohio-3882, ¶14, citing R.C. 2725.05; Majoros v. Collins, 64 Ohio St.3d 442, 696 N.E.2d 1038 (1992); State ex rel. Wynn v. Baker, 61 Ohio St.3d 464, 575 N.E.2d 208 (1991). Where direct appeal and postconviction relief are available to challenge a sentence, a habeas petition may prop......
-
Williams v. Harris
...72, 2003-Ohio-3882, ¶ 4, citing R.C. 2725.05; Majoros v. Collins, 64 Ohio St.3d 442, 596 N.E.2d 1038 (1992); State ex rel. Wynn v. Baker, 61 Ohio St.3d 464, 575 N.E.2d 208 (1991). Where direct appeal and postconviction relief are available to challenge a sentence, a habeas petition may prop......