2000 OHIO 25 - Bradford v. Moore

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at

90 Ohio St.3d 75

.]




            BRADFORD, APPELLANT, v. MOORE, WARDEN, APPELLEE.
                     [Cite as Bradford v. Moore,

2000-Ohio-25

.]
Habeas corpus relief sought to compel relator’s release from Madison
        Correctional Institution—Court of appeals’ dismissal of petition affirmed.
    (No. 00-715—Submitted August 22, 2000—Decided September 20, 2000.)
   APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Madison County, No. CA99-12-034.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} In October 1993, appellant, Derrick A. Bradford, was convicted of
aggravated trafficking in drugs and possession of criminal tools and sentenced to
an aggregate prison term of fifteen years to life. On appeal, Bradford’s convictions
and sentence were affirmed. State v. Bradford (July 27, 1999), Lorain App. No.
93CA005759, unreported,

1994 WL 395601

, affirmed (1994),

71 Ohio St.3d 1435

643 N.E.2d 141

.
        {¶ 2} In December 1999, Bradford filed a petition in the Court of Appeals
for Madison County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel appellee, Madison
Correctional Institution Warden Ernie Moore, to immediately release him from
prison. Bradford claimed that his convictions and sentence were void because his
trial court failed to comply with the jury-trial waiver requirements of R.C. 2945.05.
The court of appeals granted Warden Moore’s motion and dismissed the petition.
        {¶ 3} This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right.
                                  __________________
        Derrick A. Bradford, pro se.
        Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Diane Mallory, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
                                  __________________
        Per Curiam.
                            SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




       {¶ 4} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals because a “claimed
violation of R.C. 2945.05 is not the proper subject for habeas corpus relief and may
be remedied only in a direct appeal from a criminal conviction.” State ex rel. Earl
v. Mitchell (1999),

87 Ohio St.3d 259, 260

719 N.E.2d 545, 546

; State v. Pless
(1996),

74 Ohio St.3d 333

658 N.E.2d 766

, paragraph two of the syllabus.
                                                                Judgment affirmed.
       MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
                              __________________




                                         2