Ohio Supreme Court, 1993

Rodgers v. Capots

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided October 6, 1993 · Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright

67 Ohio St. 3d 435; 619 N.E.2d 685; 1993 Ohio LEXIS 2046

Cases that cite this one

16 later published cases cite this decision.

Fears v. Cooper (Ohio Ct. App. 2014)
Harris v. State (Ohio Ct. App. 2022)
Farley v. Wainwright (Slip Opinion) (Ohio 2021)
State v. Gamble (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)
State Ex Rel. McGrath v. Gilligan, Unpublished Decision (2-16-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
Daniel v. State (Ohio 2003)
Ridenour v. Randle (Ohio 2002)
Ridenour v. Randle (Ohio 2002)
State Ex Rel Tomajko v. Warden, House, Unpublished Decision (4-3-2000) (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)
State ex rel. Smirnoff v. Greene (Ohio 1998)
State ex rel. Smirnoff v. Greene (Ohio 1998)
Hattie v. Anderson (Ohio 1994)
Hattie v. Anderson (Ohio 1994)
Alford v. Crutchfield (Ohio Ct. App. 2016)
Thorpe v. Kerns, 1-08-31 (12-15-2008) (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)
Perotti v. Ishee, Unpublished Decision (10-10-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)

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.

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:

“If it appears that a person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer under process issued by a court or magistrate, or by virtue of the judgment or order of a court of record, and that the court or magistrate had jurisdiction to issue the process, render the judgment, or make the order, the writ of habeas corpus shall not be allowed. If the jurisdiction appears after the writ is allowed, the person shall not be discharged by reason of any informality or defect in the process, judgment, or order.”

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.

Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.