State ex rel. Norris v. Boggins

Ohio Supreme Court
State ex rel. Norris v. Boggins, 80 Ohio St. 3d 296 (Ohio 1997)
685 N.E.2d 1250
Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney

State ex rel. Norris v. Boggins

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

Norris asserts that the court of appeals erred by denying the writ. Norris’s claim, however, is meritless for the following reasons.

First, habeas corpus, rather than mandamus, is the appropriate action for persons claiming entitlement to immediate release from prison. State ex rel. Lemmon v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 186, 188, 677 N.E.2d 347, 349. Second, Norris has or had adequate legal remedies by an appeal or *297petition for postconviction relief to challenge any sentencing error. State ex rel Massie v. Rogers (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 449, 450, 674 N.E.2d 1383, 1383.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Reference

Full Case Name
[The State ex rel.] Norris v. Boggins, Judge
Cited By
3 cases
Status
Published