Ohio Supreme Court, 1994

Cornell v. Schotten

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided June 22, 1994 · No. 93-2308 · Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright

69 Ohio St. 3d 466; 633 N.E.2d 1111

Cases that cite this one

41 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Corrin v. Huffman, Unpublished Decision (8-25-2000) (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)
Whitehead v. Warden, Belmont Corr. Inst. (Ohio Ct. App. 2022)
State ex rel. Parker v. Black (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)
Robinson v. LaRose (Ohio Ct. App. 2015)
Gephart v. Miller (Ohio Ct. App. 2013)
Powers v. Timmerman-Cooper (Ohio Ct. App. 2013)
Day v. Wilson (Ohio 2008)
Ghaster v. Fitzsimmons, 90652 (11-19-2007) (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
State v. Addison, Unpublished Decision (1-17-2007) (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
Boyd v. McGinty, Unpublished Decision (5-25-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
Wayne v. Bobby, Unpublished Decision (7-16-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
Daniel v. State (Ohio 2003)
Caudill v. Brigano (Ohio 2003)
State ex rel. Morris v. Brigano (Ohio 2003)
Doyle v. State, Unpublished Decision (9-5-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
Melton v. State, Unpublished Decision (9-12-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
Clark v. State, Unpublished Decision (5-17-2001) (Ohio Ct. App. 2001)
Hurt v. Konteh, Unpublished Decision (7-16-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
State ex rel. Bruggeman v. Leonard (Ohio 1999)
State ex rel. Bruggeman v. Leonard (Ohio 1999)
Boyd v. Money (Ohio 1998)
Thomas v. Huffman (Ohio 1998)
Thomas v. Huffman (Ohio 1998)
Boyd v. Money (Ohio 1998)
Hadlock v. McFaul (Ohio Ct. App. 1995)

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 first contends that his duty to submit commitment papers was negated when respondent, J.L. Schotten, Warden of the Trumbull Correctional Institution, supplied a copy of the commitment order with a motion to dismiss the complaint. Appellant further contends that his memorandum in *467opposition to the motion to dismiss cured his failure to comply with R.C. 2725.04(D). However, R.C. 2725.04(D) explicitly requires that a copy of the cause of detention be attached to a petition for habeas corpus. We held in Bloss v. Rogers (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 145, 602 N.E.2d 602, that failure to attach a copy of the cause of detention to a petition for habeas corpus results in the petition being fatally defective. See, also, State ex rel. Parker v. Ohio Parole Bd. (1993), 68 Ohio St.3d 23, 623 N.E.2d 37.

Moreover, the other issues that appellant seeks to raise in this appeal are not jurisdictional in nature as required by R.C. 2725.05. Appellant seeks release from detention on several grounds, including insufficient evidence, improper witness testimony, allegations that only eleven members of the sentencing jury were polled concerning his guilty verdict, and ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellant has or had an adequate remedy at law for each of these allegations. We have long held that habeas corpus will not be substituted for appeal or post-conviction relief. In re Piazza (1966), 7 Ohio St.2d 102, 36 O.O.2d 84, 218 N.E.2d 459, and Bellman v. Jago (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 55, 526 N.E.2d 308.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

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