State ex rel. Raglin v. Brigano
Cases that cite this one
17 later published cases cite this decision.
- Smith v. Sheldon (Slip Opinion) (Ohio 2019)
- State ex rel. Rackley v. Sloan (Slip Opinion) (Ohio 2016)
- Gibson v. Wilson, 08ca85 (2-20-2009) (Ohio Ct. App. 2009)
- Haynes v. Voorhies (Ohio 2006)
- Buoscio v. Bagley (Ohio 2001)
- State ex rel. Bragg v. Seidner (Ohio 2001)
- State ex rel. Bragg v. Seidner (Ohio 2001)
- Buoscio v. Bagley (Ohio 2001)
- Douglas v. Money (Ohio 1999)
- State v. Pickens (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)
- Lucas v. Richland Correctional, Unpublished Decision (10-6-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
- State Ex Rel. Smith v. Yost, Unpublished Decision (2-22-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
- State Ex Rel. Smith v. Yost, Unpublished Decision (2-22-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
- State v. Yost, Unpublished Decision (8-8-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
- Gunnell v. Wolfe, Unpublished Decision (6-24-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
- Douglas v. Money (Ohio 1999)
- State ex rel. Raglin v. Brigano (Ohio 1998)
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
We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the reasons stated in its opinion. Raglin’s claim challenges the validity or sufficiency of his indictment, is nonjurisdictional in nature, and should have been raised in an appeal of his criminal conviction rather than in habeas corpus. See State ex rel. Richard v. Seidner (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 149, 151, 666 N.E.2d 1134, 1136 (“Richard essentially challenged the validity of his amended indictment, a claim which is not cognizable in habeas corpus.”).
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.