Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1998 Ohio 216

Wright v. Money

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 29, 1998

Ohio Supreme Court · decided 1998-07-29

Habeas corpus to compel relator's immediate release from prison—Petition dismissed, when.

Relies on 82 Ohio St. 3d 424 - Wright v. Money

Decided 1998-07-29

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 
82 Ohio St.3d 424
.]




              WRIGHT, APPELLANT, v. MONEY, WARDEN, APPELLEE.
                     [Cite as Wright v. Money, 
1998-Ohio-216
.]
Habeas corpus to compel relator’s immediate release from prison—Petition
        dismissed, when.
         (No. 98-118—Submitted June 24, 1998—Decided July 29, 1998.)
        APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Marion County, No. 9-97-74.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} In 1986, the Summit County Court of Common Pleas convicted
appellant, Shawn E. Wright, of aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and
felonious assault and sentenced him accordingly.
        {¶ 2} In 1997, Wright filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Marion
County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel his immediate release from prison.
Wright claimed that his conviction was unlawful because it was entered by a
probate judge while sitting in the probate division of the common pleas court.
        {¶ 3} The court of appeals sua sponte dismissed the petition.
        {¶ 4} This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right.
                                  __________________
        Shawn E. Wright, pro se.
                                  __________________
        Per Curiam.
        {¶ 5} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the reasons stated
in its opinion. The documentation attached to Wright’s petition established that he
was convicted and sentenced by the general division of the common pleas court
rather than the probate division. Although his trial court judge might have normally
been a probate division judge, the docket of journal entries indicates his assignment
to preside over the criminal case in the general division. See, e.g., Sup.R. 3(B)(2),
                              SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




which permits presiding judges of common pleas courts to assign judges of the
court “on a temporary basis to serve in another division of the court as required by
the business of the court.”
                                                                Judgment affirmed.
       MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
                               __________________




                                         2

/1998/ohio/216 · .json · Public domain