Briseno v. Cook

Ohio Supreme Court
Briseno v. Cook, 121 Ohio St. 3d 38 (Ohio 2009)
901 N.E.2d 798
Connor, Cupp, Donnell, Lanzinger, Moyer, Pfeifer, Stratton

Briseno v. Cook

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the habeas corpus petition of appellant, Antonio Briseno. Appellant had an adequate remedy by way of direct appeal from his sentence to raise his claim that he did not receive proper notification about postrelease control at his sentencing hearing. Patterson v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 120 Ohio St.3d 311, 2008-Ohio-6147, 898 N.E.2d 950, ¶ 8; Watkins v. Collins, 111 Ohio St.3d 425, 2006-Ohio-5082, 857 N.E.2d 78, ¶ 45 and 53.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.

Reference

Full Case Name
Briseno v. Cook, Warden
Cited By
7 cases
Status
Published