Ohio Supreme Court, 1988

Bellman v. Jago

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided July 20, 1988 · No. 88-44 · Brown, Douglas, Holmes, Locher, Moyer, Sweeney, Wright

38 Ohio St. 3d 55; 526 N.E.2d 308; 1988 Ohio LEXIS 218

Cases that cite this one

14 later published cases cite this decision.

Goodykoontz v. Hunter-Stuff (Ohio Ct. App. 2026)
Bevins v. Richard (Ohio 2015)
State ex rel. Bevins v. Johnson (Ohio 2012)
Smith v. Bradshaw, Unpublished Decision (10-12-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
Daniel v. State (Ohio 2003)
In re Coleman (Ohio 2002)
In re Coleman (Ohio 2002)
Hurt v. Konteh, Unpublished Decision (7-16-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
Cornell v. Schotten (Ohio 1994)
Cornell v. Schotten (Ohio 1994)
Goodykoontz v. Harris (Ohio Ct. App. 2025)
Washington v. Eppinger (Ohio Ct. App. 2020)
Jordan v. Johnson (Ohio Ct. App. 2013)
State v. Thorpe, Unpublished Decision (3-3-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

Appellant raises the following constitutional issues: right to counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, right to a speedy trial, denial of due process, and effective assistance of counsel. All these issues are appropriately raised by appeal or through post-conviction relief proceedings under R.C. 2953.21 through 2953.23, but not *56by petition for habeas corpus. Habeas corpus “is not and never was a post-conviction remedy for the review of errors or irregularities of an accused’s conviction or for a retrial of the guilt or innocence of an accused. * * *” Walker v. Maxwell (1965), 1 Ohio St. 2d 136, 137, 30 O.O. 2d 487, 488, 205 N.E. 2d 394, 395.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, Douglas, Wright and H. Brown, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.